jtfi 
 ft*--*- 
 
 Qorttrll 8Ja«u ^rtfnnl Ettearg 
 
Cornell University Library 
 KE 1499.D91 1922 
 
 The law and practice <**%S^2iPm* 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924016993127 
 
THE 
 
 LAW AND PRACTICE OF 
 
 BANKRUPTCY IN 
 
 CANADA 
 
THE LAW AND PRACTICE 
 
 Bankruptcy in Canada 
 
 Bkixu the Bankruptcy Act (9-10 Geo. V. c. 36), The Bankruptcy 
 
 • Act Amendment Act, 1920 (10 Geo. V. c. 34), The Bankruptcy 
 
 Act Amendment Act, 1921 (11-12 Geo. V. c 17), and the 
 
 General Rules and Forms Fully Annotated and 
 
 Cross-referenced, Together with Certain Chapters 
 
 on some Aspects of Bankruptcy Law. 
 
 By 
 
 LEWIS IHJNCAN, B. A. 
 
 Of Osgoode Hall, Barnster-at-Law, 
 
 TORONTO : 
 
 The Cars-\vell Company, Limited 
 . 1922 
 
(?) \*\L- 
 
 i^L 
 

 
 MAY 
 
 5 
 
 192? 
 
 PATRI MEO NEfiNON MATEI 
 
 QUIBUS QUICQTJID EST MEI MEAQUE OMNIA DEBEO 
 
 IIAIUS DESIDEEIO PIOQUE AMORE HBJUS COACTUS 
 
 MDNUS PARTJM TAM CARIS CAPITIBUS DIGHUM HUNCE LIBEtLUM 
 
 FILIUS DICAVI 
 
Copyright, Canada, 1922, by Lewis Duncan. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 Bankruptcy legislation is part of the settled juriH- 
 prudence of every great commercial country. All the 
 great states of Europe have their bankruptcy or 
 insolvency codes. England has not been without a 
 Bankruptcy Act since 1542. In the United States the 
 tradition has not been so uniform, for the subject of 
 Bankruptcy, like that of Banking, has from time to 
 time featured in politics. 
 
 Bankruptcy legislation was introduced into Lower 
 Canada in 1839; into the Province of Canada in 1843; 
 and into several of the other Provinces at an early 
 date. After Federation the Dominion had for a time 
 a general Bankruptcy law, but this was repealed 
 in 1880. From 1880 "to 1919 there was no general 
 Bankruptcy Act in force throughout Canada. The 
 result was diversity of law in nine Provinces, and the 
 absence of any Dominion-wide system under which the 
 debtor's property wherever situate could be seized, 
 and. administered for the benefit of all his creditors. 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act of 1919 follows in the main the 
 English Act of 1914. Two differences may be noted: 
 that under our Act an authorized assignment takes the 
 place of a petition presented by the debtor himself; and 
 Jhat our Act extends to companies. Amendments 
 are yet required to make the Bankruptcy Act fully 
 applicable to all the circumstances of company liqui- 
 dation ; but the advantage is obvious of having one 
 code instead of two. Two codes, especially when in 
 covering the same ground they contain different pro- 
 visions on such important matters as priorities, fraudu- 
 lent preferences and fraudulent conveyances, tend to 
 obscure the law. 
 
 Every Bankruptcy law is ultimately judged by its 
 administration .in two respects. First, the adminis- 
 tration of the estate of the debtor bv tbe Trustee. 
 
y jj[ PREFACE. 
 
 The system of administration by authorized trustees, 
 introduced by the Act of 1919, is an improvement 
 on that under the Insolvent Acts of 1869 and 1875 and 
 will, it is to be hoped, render impossible some of the 
 abuses which crept in under that system. 
 
 Secondly, the administration of the discharge and 
 offences provisions of the Act. These provisions are 
 administered strictly in England. In neither England 
 nor the United , States is the system so strict as in 
 France. To become a fallite in France involves conse- 
 quences which, were they introduced in Canada, might 
 tend to prevent the authorized assignment provisions 
 of our Act from being looked upon as a benevolently 
 created clearing house for liabilities. Still, if the dis- 
 charge and offences provisions of the Act are known 
 to creditors, and ar.e invoked where applicable, the lot 
 of the fraudulent debtor will not be an enviable one. 
 
 While certain amendments are required to the 
 Bankruptcy Act, there should be no reason to antici- 
 pate an irritating series of annual alterations. The 
 principles of the English Act of 1883 are found in 
 substance in the English consolidation of 1914. It is 
 fair to assume that we can evolve a code suited to our 
 conditions which will not require constant legislative 
 tinkering. 
 
 Until there is a body of Dominion law on Domin- 
 ion subjects the function of any commentary on a 
 Dominion Statute must be that of presenting to the 
 practitioner in the different provinces the decisions in 
 his own and other jurisdictions. It is, therefore, con- 
 sidered that no apology is required for the citation of 
 English decisions which do not come within the rule 
 in Trimble v. Hill (1879) 5 A. C. 342. Though not 
 binding on our courts, they are decisions by eminent 
 judges on a bankruptcy code on which our Act is 
 framed. Canadian cases down to those published up 
 to October, 1921, have been incorporated. Leading 
 English cases to the same date of publication have also 
 been included. 
 
PBEFAV1J. ix 
 
 It is a matter of regret. to the author that, owing 
 to prevailing prices, the publishers have not seen their 
 way clear to print the French text of the Act and Eules. 
 It is hardly necessary to remark that that text can be 
 used throughout Canada alternatively with the Eng- 
 lish. 
 
 The author wishes to express his thanks to Messrs. 
 C. P. JHalliday and E. I. Ferguson for the care they 
 have devoted to the reading of proofs and the prepara- 
 tion of the Table of Cases. 
 
 In commending this volume to the indulgence of 
 the profession, the author will take it as a kindness. if 
 those who come across errors or omissions will be 
 good enough to bring them to his attention. 
 
 L. D. 
 
 Toronto, 38 King Street West. 
 January, 1922. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 PACK 
 
 Pref aco vii-ix 
 
 Table of Contents , xi-xxv 
 
 Table of Cases xxvll-cxxxvii 
 
 Table of Corresponding English and Canadian Sections. . cxxxix-cxlil 
 
 Table of Corresponding English and Canadian Rules cxliil 
 
 Chap. I.— Bankruptcy and Insolvency 1 
 
 II. — Legislation prior to Confederation 4 
 
 III. — History of Bankruptcy and Insolvency legislation l.n 
 
 Canada subsequent to Confederation 16 
 
 IV. — Bankruptcy and Insolvency legislation under the 
 
 Canadian Federal system 20 
 
 V. — Bankruptcy Administration 29 
 
 VI. — Position of the Trustee under the Bankruptcy Act. . 39 
 
 9-10 Geo. v, c. 36 (and amendments). 
 AN ACT RESPECTING BANKRUPTCY. 
 
 SECTION. 
 
 1— Short Title 49 
 
 2 — Definitions. 
 
 (a)— Affidavit 49 
 
 (b) — Alimentary Debt 50 
 
 (c) — Appeal Court 50 
 
 (d) — Assignment 50 
 
 (e) — Assignor 50 
 
 (f) — Authorised Assignment 50 
 
 (g) — Authorised Assignor 51 
 
 (h) — Available Act of Bankruptcy 51 
 
 (i) — Banker 52 
 
 (j) — Bank 52 
 
 (k) — Corporation -. 53 
 
 (1)— Court „. 53 
 
 (m) — Creditor 53 
 
 (n) — "Debt provable in Bankruptcy" 54 
 
 (o) — Debtor 54 
 
 (p) — Discharge 62 
 
 (q) — Gazetted . 62 
 
 (r) — General Rules 62 
 
 (s)— Goods 63 
 
 (t) — Insolvent Person 63 
 
 (u)— Judge 64 
 
xii TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 ■SECTION. PAGE 
 
 (v) — Judgment, Execution or Attachment 64 
 
 ( w ) — Local Newspaper 65 
 
 ( x ) -^-Locality 65 
 
 (y)— Oath 67 
 
 (z) — Ordinary Resolution 67 
 
 (aa) — Person 67 
 
 (bb)— Petition 68 
 
 (cc) — Prescribed 68 
 
 (dd)— Property 68 
 
 (ee) — Registrar 76 
 
 (ff)— Resolution 76 
 
 (gg) — Secured Creditor 77 
 
 (Tib.)— Sheriff 88 
 
 (ii) — Special Resolution 88 
 
 (ji) — Trustee or Authorised Trustee 89 
 
 (kk)— Wage Earner 89 
 
 PART I. 
 
 BANKRUPTCY AND RECEIVING ORDERS. 
 
 Acts of Bankruptcy. 
 
 3 — Acts of Bankruptcy 90 
 
 (a) — Assignment r 93 
 
 (b) — Fraudulent Conveyance 99 
 
 (c) — Fraudulent Preference \ Ill 
 
 ( d) — Absconding and Absenting IIS 
 
 (e) — Execution unsatisfied, goods sold .by sheriff or no 
 
 goods to be found 117 
 
 (f ) — Exhibiting statement showing insolvency 120 
 
 (g) — Assignment, removal or disposal of goods 120 
 
 (h) — Non-compliance with Bulk Sales Act 121 
 
 Petition and Receiving Order. 
 4 — Bankruptcy petition 123 
 
 Interim Receiver. 
 5 — Interim receiver may be appointed 149 
 
 Trustee Under Receiving Order. 
 6 — Receiving order 151 
 
 Stay of Proceedings. 
 
 7 — Power to stay proceedings 160 
 
 8— Application of Part 1 165 
 
TABLE OF CONTEXTS. xiii 
 PART II. 
 
 ASSIGNMENTS AND COMPOSITIONS. 
 
 section. Assignments. ,, AGE 
 
 9 — Authorized assignment 168 
 
 10 — Form of assignment 168 
 
 10A — Assignment to be filed in court 168 
 
 General Provisions Relating to Receiving Orders 
 and Assignments. 
 
 11 — Effect of receiving order and assignment 178 
 
 12 — Amendment of mistakes by judge 202 
 
 Composition, Extension or Scheme of Arrangement. 
 
 13 — Composition, extension or scheme of arrangement 203 
 
 13A — Stay of proceedings in case of composition, extension, 
 
 scheme or authorised assignment 226 
 
 PART. III. 
 
 TRUSTEES AND ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY. 
 
 Appointment of Trustees. 
 
 14 — Appointment of trustees 230 
 
 15(1)— Substitution of trustee 237 
 
 (2) — Removal of trustee by court 238 
 
 (3) — Property of debtor to vest in new trustee 238 
 
 (4) — Remuneration of removed trustee 238 
 
 (5) — Trustee not bound to act 238 
 
 Official Xame. 
 
 16 — Official name of trustee 244 
 
 .Duties and Powers of Trustee. 
 
 17 — Duties and powers of trustee 245 
 
 18 — Powers of trustee to deal with property 248 
 
 19 — Right of trustee to sell, etc 250 
 
 20 — Powers exercisable by trustee with permission of inspectors 251 
 
 21— Power to allow bankrupt to manage property 272 
 
 22(1) — Protection of trustee from personal liability 274 
 
 (2) — Inspection of goods held in pledge 274 
 
 23 — Books to be kept by trustee 276 
 
 24 — Report to creditors by trustee 270 
 
 Administration of Estate. 
 25 — Description of debtor's property divisible amongst credit- 
 ors - 278 
 
 26 — Property not to be removed from province 315 
 
XIV 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 .SECTION. PAGE 
 
 27, — Continuance of ' business by trustee 316 
 
 28 (1)— Law of set-off to apply 319 
 
 (2) — Ranking of claims where different estates 319 
 
 Settlement and Preferences. 
 
 29 — Avoidance of certain settlements 326 
 
 30 — Avoidance. of general assignment of book debts 334 
 
 31 — Avoidance of preference in certain cases 339 ■ 
 
 32 — Transactions protected from relation back of title of 
 
 trustee 355 
 
 33 — Recovery of proceeds of certain transactions 368 
 
 34(1)— Transactions with, bankrupt after making of receiving 
 
 order 371 
 
 (2) — Duty of banker to notify trustee , .' 372 
 
 35 — Proceedings by creditor when trustee refuses to act 376 
 
 Contributories to Insolvent Corporations. 
 36 — Contributories 380 
 
 Dividends. 
 
 37— Dividends 384 
 
 38 — Right of debtor to surplus 393 
 
 Appeals from Decisions of Trustee. 
 39 — Appeal to court against trustee 394 
 
 Remuneration of Trustee. 
 40 — Remuneration of trustee • 396 
 
 Discharge of Trustee. 
 41 — Discharge of trustee 398 
 
 PART IV. 
 
 CREDITORS. 
 
 Meetings of Creditors. 
 4-' — Meetings of creditors 401 
 
 Inspectors. 
 43 — Inspectors 410 
 
 Debts Provable. 
 44— Debts provable 414 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. X \ 
 
 SECTION. • PAGK 
 
 Proof of Debts. 
 45— Proof of debts 431 
 
 Proof by Secured Creditors. 
 46 — Proof by secured creditors 434 
 
 Proof in Respect of Distinct Contracts. 
 47 — Proof in respect of distinct contracts 446 
 
 Restricted Creditors.- 
 48 — Restricted creditors 449 
 
 Interest. 
 49 — Interest 453 
 
 ETebts Payable at a Future Time. 
 50 — Debts payable at a future time 456 
 
 Priority of Claims. 
 51 — Priority of claims 457 
 
 Rights of Landlord. 
 52— Rights of landlord 472 
 
 Disallowance of Claims. 
 53 — Disallowance of claims ...... 485 
 
 PART V. 
 
 DEBTORS. 
 
 Duties of Debtors. 
 54— Duties of debtors 492 
 
 Arrest of Debtors. 
 55 — Arrest of debtors 498 
 
 Examination of Debtors and Others. 
 
 56 — Examination of debtors and others 501 
 
 57 — Re-direction of debtor's letters 515 
 
 Discharge of Bankrupt or Assignor. 
 
 58 — Discharge of bankrupt or assignor 515 
 
 59 — Facts on which discharge may be refused, suspended or 
 
 granted conditionally 525 
 
xv i TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 SECTION. PAGE 
 
 60 — Matters to be considered on application for discharge .... 529 
 
 61 — What debts are not released by order of discharge 532 
 
 02 — Power of court to annul adjudication 539 
 
 PART VI. 
 
 CODETS AND PROCEDURE. 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 63 — Jurisdiction of courts 546 
 
 Sittings and, Distribution of Business of Courts. 
 64 — 'Sittings and distribution of 'business of courts 566 
 
 Powers of Registrar. 
 65 — Powers " of Registrar 569 
 
 General Rules. 
 66— General Rules 572 
 
 Fees and Returns. 
 67— Tariff of costs and fees 573 
 
 Procedure. 
 
 68 — Procedure 575 
 
 69 — Proceedings in case of partnership 580 
 
 70 — Actions in case of partnership 582 
 
 71 — Enforcement of orders throughout Canada 584 
 
 72— Warrants 587 
 
 73 — Commitment to prison 588 
 
 Review and Appeal. 
 74 — Review and appeal 589 
 
 PART VII. 
 
 Supplemental Provisions. 
 
 75 — Married women : 597 
 
 76 — Application to limit partnerships 598 
 
 77 — Evidence of proceedings at meetings .• 598 
 
 78 — Evidence of proceedings in bankruptcy 599 
 
 79 — Swearing of affidavits 600 
 
 80— Seal of Court 601 
 
TABLE OF COXTEXTS. xv jj 
 
 SECTION. PAGE 
 
 81 — Death of debtor or witness 601 
 
 82 — Computation of time 602 
 
 83 — Service of notices 603 
 
 84 — Formal defect not to invalidate proceedings 604 
 
 85 — Who may act for corporation, etc 607 
 
 86 — Certain provisions to bind the Crown 608 
 
 87 — Barristers, solicitors and advocates 610 
 
 88 — Rights of banks protected 611 
 
 88A — Alternative powers of inspectors and Court 611 
 
 PART VIII. 
 
 Bankruptcy Offences. 
 
 89 — Bankruptcy offences 612 
 
 90 — Undischarged bankrupt obtaining credit 618 
 
 91 — Bankrupt failing to keep proper books of account 620 
 
 92 — False claim to be creditor 623 
 
 93 — Order by Court for prosecution on report of trustee 623 . 
 
 94 — Criminal liability after discharge or composition 626 
 
 95 — Power of Court to commit lor trial 627 
 
 96 — Person pretending to be trustee ■ 629 
 
 97 — Penalty for removing debtor's goods 630 
 
 98 — Liability of officer, director or agent ,. . . 631 
 
 99 — Act to be administered by Minister of Justice 632 
 
 GENERAL RULES AND FORMS. 
 PART I. 
 
 EULB. PRKLIMTXARV. 
 
 1 — Short title , 634 
 
 2 — Interpretation of terms 634 
 
 The Act 634 
 
 The court 634 
 
 Creditor , 634 
 
 Judge 634 
 
 Proper officer 634 
 
 Province 634 
 
 Registrar 634 
 
 Seal 634 
 
 Taxing officer 634 
 
 Trustee 634 
 
 Written 634 
 
 3 — Use of forms in appendix 635 
 
 B.C. — n 
 
xwii TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 ,„.,_ GENERAL PROCEDURE. 
 
 RT.LE. PAGE 
 
 4 — All matters heard in chambers 635 
 
 5 — Jurisdiction of registrars 635 
 
 6 — Adjournment from registrar to judge 635 
 
 PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 7 — Proceedings how intituled 636 
 
 8 — Written proceedings 636 
 
 9 — Records of court 636 
 
 10 — Process to be sealed 636 
 
 11 — (1) Transfer of proceedings 637 
 
 (2) Transmission of records 637 
 
 12 — 'Proceedings commenced in wrong court 637 
 
 1 3 — Leave to proceed under Winding-up Act 637 
 
 MOTIONS AND PRACTICE. 
 
 14 — Application to be made by motion 637 
 
 15 — Notice of motion and ex parte application 638 
 
 16 — Length of notice 638 
 
 17— Personal service 638 
 
 18— Piling affidavits '. 639 
 
 19 — Notice of motion to be filed 639 
 
 SETTLEMENT OF ORDER. 
 
 20 — Settlement and signature of orders 639 
 
 SECURITY IN COURT. 
 
 21— ( 1 ) Security by bond 639 
 
 (2) Justification of sureties 639 
 
 22— Amount of bond 639 
 
 23 — Deposit in lieu of bond 640 
 
 24 — Notice of deposit 640 
 
 25 — Payment of money into or out of court 640 
 
 AFFIDAVITS 
 
 26— Form of affidavits 640 
 
 27 — Scandalous matter 640 
 
 28 — Erasures 640 
 
 29— Blind or illiterate persons 640 
 
 30— Formal defects 641 
 
 31 — Swearing of affidavits 641 
 
 32 — Affidavit on behalf of corporation 641 
 
 33— Proof of affidavit 641 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. x [ x 
 
 WITNESSES AND DEPOSITIONS. '„.„„ 
 
 RULE. PAGE 
 
 34 — Attendance of witnesses 641 
 
 • 35 — Service of subpoena 642 
 
 36 — Cost of witnesses 642 
 
 37 — Depositions, etc 642 
 
 38 — (1) Depositions may be taken in shorthand 642 
 
 (2) Method of taking 642 
 
 39 — -Form of commission . ; 643 
 
 40 — Production of document 643 
 
 41 — Disobedience of order 643 
 
 42 — Conduct money 644 
 
 DISCOVERY AND EXAMINATION. 
 
 43 — Discovery and examination 644 
 
 WARRANTS, ARRESTS AND COMMITMENTS. 
 
 44 — To whom warrants addressed 644 
 
 45 — Custody and production of debtor 644 
 
 46 — Execution of warrant 645 
 
 47 — To be produced for examination 645 
 
 48 — Suspension of order of committal 645 
 
 49 — Where witness refuses to attend, etc 645 
 
 SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS. 
 
 50 — Address of solicitor for service 646 
 
 51 — Hours of service 646 
 
 52 — Duties of sheriff or bailiff 646 
 
 53 — Enforcement of orders 646 
 
 COSTS AND TAXATION. 
 
 54 — Awarding costs 646 
 
 55 — Costs of petition 647 
 
 56 — Taxation of costs 647 
 
 57— Tariff of costs 648 
 
 58 — Notice of appointment 648 
 
 59— Copy of bill ' 648 
 
 60 — Costs out of joint and separate estates 648 
 
 61 — Limit of costs payable by -trustees 649 
 
 FEES. 
 
 62 — Fees payable on proceedings 649 
 
 RULES RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT. 
 
 63— Sittings 649 
 
 64 — Registrars to act for each other 649 
 
 65 — Execution on orders 649 
 
 66 — Officers refusing to act 650 
 
XX 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 APPEALS FROM REGISTRAR. 
 RULB. PAGE 
 
 67 — Appeals from registrar 650 
 
 APPEALS TO APPEAL COURT. 
 
 68 — (1) Notice and time of appeal 650 
 
 ( 2 ) Security for appeal 650 
 
 69 — Transmission of proceedings 651 
 
 70 — Appeals when issue tried by another court 651 
 
 71 — Procedure on appeals 651 
 
 APPEALS TO SUPREME COURT. 
 
 72 — Time and notice of application 651 
 
 7.3 — Procedure 651 
 
 PART III. 
 
 PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY. 
 
 74 — Form of petition 652 
 
 75 — Security for costs 652 
 
 76 — Issue of petition . . . .' 652 
 
 77 — Service of petition 652 
 
 78 — Substituted service 653 
 
 79 — Proof of service 653 
 
 80— Service on firm 653 
 
 81 — Service on individual trading in name other than his own. 654 
 
 82 — Service on corporation 654 
 
 83 — Service out of jurisdiction 654 
 
 84 — Death of debtor before service 654 
 
 INTERIM RECEIVER. 
 
 85 — Appointment of interim receiver 654 
 
 86 — Damages if petition dismissed 654 
 
 HEARING OF PETITION. 
 
 87 — Debtor intending to show cause .' 655 
 
 88 — Non-appearance of debtor 655 
 
 89 — Appearance of debtor to show cause '. 655 
 
 90— Proceedings after trial of disputed question 65G 
 
 91 — Application to dismiss 656 
 
 RECEIVING ORDER. 
 
 92 — Contents 656 
 
 93 — Service . . . . 657 
 
 94 — Receiving order against firm 657 
 
 95— Liability of limited partners 657 
 
 96— Applications to rescind receiving order, etc 657 
 
TABLE OF CONTEXTS. x .\i 
 
 STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS. „.„„ 
 
 97— (1) How made out 657 
 
 (2) By firm 657 
 
 ( 3 ) By corporation 658 
 
 COMPOSITION. EXTENSION OB SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT. 
 
 98 — Form of proposal 658 
 
 99 — Notice to creditors 658 
 
 100 — Opposed application 658 
 
 101 — Hearing and appeal 658 
 
 102 — Costs of application 658 
 
 103 — Evidence and order 659 
 
 104 — Correction of formal slips 659 
 
 105 — Vesting of property when composition annulled 659 
 
 106 — Proof of debts in composition, etc 659 
 
 DISCHARGE OF TRUSTEE. 
 
 107 — Form of application 659 
 
 108 — Notice of application 659 
 
 109 — (1) Debtor or creditor opposing discharge 660 
 
 (2) Registrar may grant unopposed application 660 
 
 110 — Trustee to keep documents securely 660 
 
 111 — Provisions in case of false bidding in Quebec . . . . | 660 
 
 MEETING OF CREDITORS. 
 
 112 — (1) Non-reception of notice by creditor 661 
 
 (2) Adjournment 661 
 
 113 — Payment to debtor of expenses 661 
 
 114 — Disputes between creditors to be settled by court 661 
 
 PROOF OF CLAIMS. 
 
 115 — Workmen's wage claims 661 
 
 116 — Notice of admission of proof 662 
 
 DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS. 
 
 117 — Form and service of notice 662 
 
 118 — Costs of appeal 662 
 
 CONTINGENT OR UNLIQUIDATED CLAIMS. 
 
 119 — Form and service of notice of motion 662 
 
 Disposal by judge 662 
 
 SETTLEMENTS AND PREFERENCES. 
 
 120 — Form and service of notice of application 663 
 
 Disposal by judge 663 
 
 121 — Lis pendens 663 
 
xxii TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 C'ONXRIBUTORIES TO I .V SOL VENT CORPORATIONS. „.„„ 
 
 RULE. PAGE 
 
 122 — Form of demand 663 
 
 123 — Judgment by default 664 
 
 124 — Procedure where contributory disputes demand 664 
 
 125 — More than one contributory may be included 664 
 
 126 — Trustee to file papers on hearing '. 664 
 
 127 — Execution may be stayed 664 
 
 128 — Procedure on adjustment of rights between contributories . 665 
 
 129— Court to adjust 665 
 
 130 — Payment out of moneys 665 
 
 EXAMINATION OF DEOTOR AND OTHERS. 
 
 131 — Procedure 665 
 
 132 — Place of examination 665 
 
 133 — Appointment for 666 
 
 134— Service 666 
 
 DISCHARGE. 
 
 135 — Application 666 
 
 136— Appeals 666 
 
 137 — Evidence in answer to report 666 
 
 138 — Costs of application 667 
 
 139 — Orders conditional on consent to judgment 667 
 
 140— Order 667 
 
 141 — Application for leave to issue execution 667 
 
 142 — Accounts of after-acquired property 668 
 
 143 — Verification of statement of after-acquired property 668 
 
 144 — Application for modification of order 668 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 145 — No lien on debtor's books 669 
 
 146 — Non-compliance with rules 670 
 
 147 — Interest on deposit of trustee 670 
 
 148 — Reckoning of days 670 
 
 149 — Reckoning of days 670 
 
 150 — Reckoning of time 670 
 
 151 — Reckoning of time 670 
 
 152 — General practice under Act and Rules 671 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 FORM NO. 
 
 1— General title 672 
 
 2 — Creditors' petition , 672 
 
 3 — Affidavit of truth of statements in petition 674 
 
 4— Affidavit of truth of statements in joint petition 674 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 XXI 11 
 
 POBM NO. PAGE 
 
 5 — Affidavit of service of petition 675 
 
 6 — Notice of substituted service of petition 675 
 
 7 — Order for substituted service of a petition 076 
 
 8 — Notice by debtor of intention to oppose petition 677 
 
 9 — Order to stay proceedings on petition 677 
 
 10 — Bond on stay of proceedings, security, etc 678 
 
 11 — Notice of sureties 679 
 
 12 — Affidavit of justification 679 
 
 13 — Dismissal of petition 680 
 
 14 — Receiving order 680 
 
 15 — Order appointing interim receiver 681 
 
 16 — Order of transfer of proceedings 681 
 
 17 — Order restraining action, etc., before receiving order 682 
 
 18 — Assignment for the general benefit of creditors 682 
 
 19 — Form of affidavit 683 
 
 20 — Notice to creditors of first meeting where receiving order 
 
 or assignment made 684 
 
 21 — Notice to creditors where debtor submits offer of composi- 
 tion, extension or scheme 684 
 
 22— Voting letter 685 
 
 23 — Proposal for a composition 680 
 
 24 — Proposal for an extension of time or scheme 6S6 
 
 25 — Resolution accepting composition 687 
 
 26 — Resolution accepting extension of scheme of arrangement. . 688 
 
 27 — Order appointing day for hearing 689 
 
 28 — Notice to creditors of application to court to approve com- 
 position, extension or scheme S89 
 
 29 — Report of authorized trustee on proposal for composition, 
 
 extension or scheme 689 
 
 30 — Order approving composition or scheme 690 
 
 31— Order refusing to approve composition, extension or 
 
 scheme 690 
 
 32 — Notice to creditors of meeting to appoint new trustee 691 
 
 33 — Resolution to appoint or substitute another authorized 
 
 trustee 691 
 
 34 — Notice of new or substituted trustee : 692 
 
 35 — Affidavit of new or substituted trustee 693 
 
 36 — Bond to register under section 14(8) 693 
 
 37 — Demand by trustee on contributory under section 36(6).. 694 
 38 — Application of trustee for judgment against contributories 
 
 of insolvent corporation 694 
 
 39 — Application of contributory to adjust rights of contribu- 
 tories 695 
 
 40 — Affidavit in support of application to adjust rights of con- 
 tributories 696 
 
xxiv TABLE OF CONTEXTS. 
 
 FOKM .NO. PAGE 
 
 41 — Notice to persons claiming to be creditors of intention to 
 declare final dividend and requiring them to establish 
 
 claim 697 
 
 42 — Application of trustee for his discharge 697 
 
 43 — Affidavit verifying application of trustee for his discharge. . C98 
 
 44 — Order discharging authorized trustee 698 
 
 45 — General proxy 699 
 
 46 — Special proxy 699 
 
 47— Proof of debt 699 
 
 48 — Proof of debt of workmen or others 700 
 
 4D — Notice of election to retain leasehold property under sec- 
 tion 52 701 
 
 50 — Notice of disclaimer of lease under section 52 702 
 
 51 — Notice of disallowance of claim 702 
 
 52 — Statement of affairs 703 
 
 53 — Notice to debtor of meeting of creditors 706 
 
 54 — Affidavit of person in support of order 706 
 
 55 — Affidavit in support of application for committal of debtor 
 
 for contempt under section 54 707 
 
 56 — Notice of application for committal under section 54 708 
 
 57 — Order for committal under section 54 708 
 
 58 — Warrant for committal for contempt 709 
 
 59 — Order for discharge from custody on contempt 709 
 
 60 — Warrant of seizure 710 
 
 61 — Warrant of arrest against debtor 710 
 
 G2 — Appointment for examination of debtor and others 711 
 
 63 — Declaration by shorthand writer 712 
 
 64 — Notes of examination of debtor or others 712 
 
 65— Order to Postmaster-General under section 57 713 
 
 66 — Application for order of discharge 713 
 
 67 — Notice to trustee of application for discharge 714 
 
 68 — Notice to creditors of application for discharge 714 
 
 69 — Order granting discharge unconditionally 715 
 
 70 — Order refusing discharge 715 
 
 71 — Order suspending discharge 716 
 
 72— Order of discharge where only facts proved that assets not 
 
 equal to 50 cents on the dollar 717 
 
 73— Order of discharge subject to conditions as to earnings, 
 
 after-acquired property and income 717 
 
 74— Order of discharge subject to a condition requiring the 
 bankrupt or assignor to consent to judgment being entered 
 
 against him 718 
 
 75— Consent of bankrupt (or authorised assignor) to judgment 
 being entered for balance or part of balance of provable 
 
 debts 719 
 
 7fi— Judgment to be entered pursuant to the consent 719 
 
TABLE 0L<' CONTENTS. xxv 
 FORM NO. PAOE 
 
 77 — Affidavit by debtor, whose discharge has been granted con- 
 ditionally as to after-acquired property or income 720 
 
 78 — Order annulling adjudication under section 62(1) 720 
 
 79 — Notice of order annulling adjudication under section 62(3). 721 
 
 80 — Certificate of removal of disqualification 721 
 
 81 — Notice of discharge of bankrupt 721 
 
 82 — Taxing master's certificate 722 
 
 83 — Subpoena 722 
 
 84 — Subpoena duces tecum 723 
 
 PART II. 
 
 TARIFF OF COSTS. 
 
 Instructions 724 
 
 Drawing, pleadings, etc 724 
 
 Affidavits 724 
 
 Perusals 724 
 
 Writs . '. 725 
 
 Services ( 725 
 
 Briefs 725 
 
 Copies 725 
 
 Notices, demands, etc 725 
 
 Attendances 725 
 
 Letters 726 
 
 Bonds 726 
 
 Judgment, rule or order 726 
 
 Payment into or out of court 726 
 
 Taxation of costs 726 
 
 Counsel fees 727 
 
 Solicitors' fees on collection of accounts 728 
 
 Allowance to witnesses 728 
 
 PART III. 
 
 Scale of fees — payable on proceedings 728 
 
 Index 709 
 
TABLE OF CASES 
 
 Note: The method of citation adopted in the table of cases 
 and in the text is as follows: 
 
 Canadian cases in the text carry reference to one or more of 
 the current reports. In the table of eases all citations, so far as 
 possible, have been given. Citations of English decisions in the text 
 have been confined to the Law Reports, Law Journal Reports and 
 the Bankruptcy Reports. The Bankruptcy Reports consist of 
 Morell, Manson and Hansell. In the table of cases all known 
 citations are given. 
 
 Where a ease consists of two names, such as in re Poolcy, ex 
 parte Raboidge, citations in the table will be found under the in re 
 portion of the case. For the convenience of the profession the case 
 is also indexed under the ex parte portion of the case, with a cross 
 reference to Pooley in re, ex parte Robbidge: for the citations. 
 Where a case consists of three names, such as in re Jones, Brown 
 v. Smith, the citations will be found under Jones in re, Brown r. 
 Smith, but the case is also indexed as follows: Brown v. Smith 
 in re Jones, Smith, Brown v. in re Jones, with cross references to 
 Jones in re Brown v. Smith. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Aachener Disconto Gesellschaft, ex parte, In re Blakely, see 
 
 Blakely in re, ex parte Aachener Disconto, etc. 
 Aaronson in re and ex parte (1878), 7 Ch. D. 713; 47 L. J. 
 
 Bank 60 ; 38 L. T. 243 494 
 
 Abbott in re, ex parte 0. R. (1894), 1 Q. B. 442; 63 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 253 ; 69 L. T. 765 ; 10 Mor. 306 582 
 
 A. B. & Co., in re (No. 2) (1900), 2 Q. B. 429; 69 L. J. Q. B, 
 
 568; 82 L, T. 544; 48 W. R. 485; 16 T. L. R. 365; 7 Man 
 
 268 . . " 96,150 
 
 Abdy ex parte, in re Thelluson, see In re Thelluson ex parte 
 
 Abdy. 
 
 Abell v. Daniell (1829) , M. & W. 370 S51 
 
 Abley v. Dale (1851), 11 C. B. 378 536 
 
 Abraham, in re (1921), 1 C. B. 'R. 427 (Panneton, J) 501 
 
 Abraham v. Abraham (1890), 19 O. R. 256 affd. 18 O. A. R. 
 
 436 190, 199 
 
 Ackary in re, ex parte Bolland (1896), 3 Ch. D. 125; 45 L. J. 
 
 Bank 133 641 
 
 Ackerman ex parte (1808), 14 Ves. 604 468 
 
 Acraman, Carr v. See Carr v. Acraman. 
 
 Ackroyd ex parte (1824) , 1 G. & J. 391 392, 550 
 
 Adam, Baker *. See Baker v. Adam. 
 
 Adams in re, ex parte Culley (1878), 9 Ch. D. 307; 47 L. J. Ch. 
 
 97; 38 L. T. 858; 27 W. R. 28 127 
 
 Adams in re, ex parte Griffin (1879), 12 Ch. D. 480; 48 L. J. Bank 
 
 107; 41 L. T. 515; 28 W. R. 208 132, 138 
 
 Adams, Cooper v., re Budgett. See In re Budgett, Cooper t. 
 
 Adams. 
 Adams v. Keers (1919), 46 O. L. R. 113, varied in 16 O W. N. 
 
 347 78, 81, 189 
 
 Adams, Osborne v. See Osborne v. Adams. 
 
 Adams v. Woodland (1878) , 3 O. A. R. 213 539 
 
 Adamson in re, ex parte Viney (1895), 71 L. T. 579; 43 W 1 R. 
 
 192; 2 Mans. 153 98, 129 
 
 Adamson ex parte, in re Collie. See In re Collie ex parte 
 
 Adamson. 
 Adamson ex parte, in re Hagan & Co. See Hagan & Co. in re, 
 
 ex parte Adamson. 
 
XX viii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Adamson, Canadian Bank of Commerce v. See Canadian Bank 
 
 of Commerce v. Adamson. 
 
 Adelburt in re, ex parte Schmaling (1817), Buck. 93 416 
 
 A die in re, ex parte Rushforth (1901), 84 L. T. 508; W. N. 98. . . 394 
 Administrator of Jamaica v. Lascelles (1894), App. Cas. 135; 
 
 63 L. J. P. C. 70; 70 L. T. 179; 42 W. R. 416; 1 Man. 163 105 
 
 Ador ex parte, in re Browne and Wingrove. See In re Browne 
 
 and Wingrove ex parte Ador. 
 Affleck v. Hammond (1912), 3 K. B. 162; 81 L. J. K. B. 565; 106 
 
 L. T 8; 19 Man. Ill 296, 299, 313 
 
 Agra Bank in re, ex parte Waring (1867), 36 L. J. Ch. 151 284 
 
 Agricultural Insurance Co., Parlee v. See Parlee v. Agr. Ins. Co. 
 
 Ainsworth er parte (1838), 3 M. & A. 451; 2 Dea. 563 550 
 
 Akerman in re, Akerman v. Akerman (1891), 3 Ch. 212; 61 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 34 392 
 
 Aird, Urquhart v. See Urquhart v. Aird. 
 
 Alaska Mercantile Co., Lennox v. See Lennox v. Alaska Mer- 
 cantile Co. 
 
 Albert Life Assurance Co. in re (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 381 409 
 
 Alberta Newspapers Ltd., Risler v. See Risler v. Alberta News-_ 
 
 papers Ltd. 
 Alberta Ornamental Iron Co. and Imperial Bank in re (1917), 
 
 35 W. L. R. 126-; (1917) 1 W. W. R. 126 465 
 
 Alderson in re, ex parte Jackson (1895), 1 Q. B. 183; 64 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 188; 1 Mans. 495 116 
 
 Alderson in re, ex parte Kirby (1891), 8 Mor. 93 604, 638 
 
 Alderson v. Watson (No. 1) (1915), 35 O. L. R. 564 477, 482 
 
 Alderson v. Watson (No. 2) (1916) , 36 O. L. R. 502 480 
 
 Alexander ex parte, in re Eslick. See In re Eslick ex parte 
 
 .A.1 6 x 3,11 d g r 
 Alexandria Oil Co. v. Cook (1909), 14 O. W. R. 604; 1 O. W. N. 
 
 22, affirming 13 O. W. R. 405 108 
 
 Allan v Garrett (1870), 30 U. C. Q. B. 165 175, 215, 216, 218, 224 
 
 Allan, Phillips v. See Phillips v. Allan. 
 
 Allard ex parte, in re Simmons. See In re Simmons. 
 
 Allday and Bushell ex parte, in re Eliot Pearce and Co. See 
 
 Eliot Pearce & Co. in re, ex parte Allday and Bushell. 
 Allen in re, ex parte Shaw (1915), 1 K. B. 285; 112 L. T. 194; 
 
 59 Sol. J. 130 '. 597 
 
 Allen v. Bank of Ottawa (1908), 11 O. W. R. 148 377 
 
 Allen v. Bonnett (1870), L. R. 5 Ch. 577; 23 L. T. 439; 18 W. R. 
 
 874 91, 95, 112 
 
 Allen v. Hanson, In re Scottish Canadian Asbestos Co. See 
 
 Scottish Canadian Asbestos Co. in re, Allen v. Hanson. 
 
 Allison ex parte, 1 G & J. 210 550 
 
 Allix in re (1914), 2 K. B. 77; 83 L. J. K. B. 665; 110 L. T. 592; 
 
 58 S. J. 250; 21 Man. 1 94 
 
 Allner v. Lighter (1913), 13 D. L. R. 210 462 
 
 Allnuth, Hale v. See Hale v. Allnuth. 
 
 Allsop ex parte, in re Disney. See In re Disney ex parte Allsop. 
 
 Alsop ex parte (1860), 29 L. J. Bank 7; 1 DeG. F. J. 289 97 
 
 Alton v. Harrison (1869), L. R. 4 Ch. 622; 28 L. J. Ch. 669; 17 
 
 W. R. 1034 107, 111, 341 
 
 Alton, Wilmot v. See Wilmot v. Alton. 
 
 American Metal Co., Brenner v. See Brenner v. American Metal 
 
 Co. 
 Ambler, Ambler Woodhead v. See In re Ambler Woodhead v. 
 
 Ambler. 
 Ambler in re, Wood v. Ambler (1905), 1 Ch. 697; 74 L J. Ch. 
 
 367; 92 L. T. 716; 53 W. R. 584 458 
 
 Ambler in re, Woodhead v. Ambler (1905), 1 Ch 697 40 
 
 Ambrose v. .Clenton, 2 Str. 1052 429 
 
 Ames Holden Co., West v. See West v. Ames Holden Co. 
 Amherst's Trusts in re (1872), L. R. 13 Ect. 464; 41 L. J. Ch. 
 
 222; 25 L. T. 870; 20 W R. 290 288 
 
 Amner in re, ex parte Robson (1841) , 2 M. D. & D. 65 249 
 
 Amor in re and ex parte (1882), 21 Ch 1 . D. 594; 52 L. J. Ch. 138; 
 
 31 W .R. 282; 48 L. T. 16 494, 495 
 
TABLE OF CASES. xxix 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Anderson in re (1911), 1 K. B. 896; 80 L. J. K. B. 919; 104 L. T. 
 
 221; 18 Man. 216 72, 75, 310, 5X7 
 
 Anderson in re and ex parte (1870), L. R. 5 Ch. 473; 39 L. J. 
 
 Bank 49'; 18 W. R. 715; 22 L. T. 361 551, 5G4 
 
 Anderson v. Davis. See Davis v. Anderson. 
 
 Anderson v. Maltby (1793), 2 Ves. 244; 4 Bro. C. C. 422 47, 266 
 
 Anderson, Segsworth v. See Segsworth v. Anderson. 
 
 Anderton ex parte (1829), M. & Mac. 177 550 
 
 Andrew in re (1875), 1 Ch. D. 358; 45 L. J. Bank 57; 35 L. T. 
 
 556; 24 W. R. 197 128 
 
 Andrew Motherwell of Canada Ltd (1921), 20 O. W. N. 306 
 
 (Holmested, R.) 42, 47, 643, 644, 669 
 
 Andrews in re (1877), 2 O. A. R. 24 45 
 
 Andrews in re, ex parte Barrow (1881), 18 Ch. D. 464; 50 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 821; 45 L. T. 197 215, 217, 539 
 
 Andrews ex parte, in re Pells. See In re Fells ex parte Andrews. 
 Andrews, Doe Palmer v. See Doe Palmer v. Andrews. 
 Andrews, Hands v., In re Smith. See In re Smith. 
 
 Andrew's Trusts in re (1878) , 7 Ch. D. 635 334 
 
 Angell in re, ex parte Schoolbred (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 298; 54 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 337 ; 2 Mor. 5 647 
 
 Angerstein in re and ex parte (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 479; 43 L. J. 
 
 Bank 131; 30 L. T. 446; 22 W. R. 581 263, 264 
 
 Anglo Continental Corp. of Western Australia in re and ex parte 
 
 (1898) 1 Ch 327 394 
 
 Anglo-French Co-Operative Soc. ex parte Peily (1882), 21 Ch. 
 
 D. 492 322 
 
 Anglo-Italian Bank, Mon v. See Mon v. Anglo-Italian Bank. 
 Anglo-Maltese Hydraulic Dock Co. Ltd. (1885), 54 L. J. Ch. 730. 669 
 
 Anon (1807), 13 Ves. 590 59, SO 
 
 Antipitsky, Smith v. See Smith v. Antipitsky. 
 
 Appleby in re, ex parte Brown (1876), 2 Ch. D. 799; 45 L. J. 
 
 Bank 115; 35 L. T. 10; 24 W. R. 750 395. 624, 625 
 
 Appleton, French, Scrafton & Co. in re (1905), 1 Ch. 749; 74 
 
 L. J. Ch. 471; 53 W. R. 601; 93 L. T. 8; 12 Mans. 335 511 
 
 Arbouin ex parte (1846), DeG. 359 469 
 
 Archer ex parte (1826), 2 Glyn & J. 110 282 
 
 Archibald v. Haldan (1870), 30 U. C. Q. B. 30. .162, 163, 173, 229, 
 
 557 564 
 
 Archibald v. Haldan (1871), 31 U. C. Q. B. 295 .'341 
 
 Archibalds. Hubley (1890), 18 S. C. R. 116 ._ 94 
 
 Archibald, Mulcahy v. See Mulcahy v. Archibald. 
 
 Arden in re and ex parte (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 121; 51 L. T. 712; 
 
 33 W. R. 460; 2 Mor. 1 444, 604 
 
 Armitage in re, ex parte Good (1877), 5 Ch. D. 46 135 
 
 Armani v. Castrique (1844), 13 M. & W. 443, 447; 14 L. J. Ex. 
 
 36, 38 537 
 
 Armstrong in re, ex parte Gilchrist (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 521; 55 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 578; 55 L. T. 538; 34 W. R. 709; 3 Mor. 193. .315, 497 
 Armstrong in re, ex parte Lindsay (1892), 1 Q. B. 327, 329, 330; 
 
 8 Mor. 271 497, 512, 643 
 
 Armstrong v. Foster (1884). 6 O. R. 129 237, 400 
 
 Armstrong v. Johnston (1900), 32 O. R. 15 » 349 
 
 Armstrong, Lazier v. See Lazier v. Armstrong. 
 Armstrong et al. v. Watson (Assignee of Eugene Restaurants 
 Ltd.) (1919), 1 W. W. R. 956 (Alta.) ; (1919) 45 D. L. R. 
 
 501 462, 463 
 
 Army and Navy Hotel Co., Ross v. See Ross v. Army and Navy 
 
 Hotel Co. 
 Arnaud ex parte, in re Bullen. See In re Bullen ex parte 
 Arnaud. 
 
 Arnbld in re, ex parte O. R. (1891), 9 Mor. 1 260, 265 
 
 Arnold ex parte, in re Wright (1876). See in re Wright ex parte 
 
 Arnold. 
 Arnold v. Dominion Trust Co. (1918), 2 W. W. R. 25; 56 S. C. R. 
 
 433 ; 41 D. L. R. 107 594 
 
 Arnott in re (1888), ex parte O. R., 37 W. R. 223; 60 L. T. 109; 
 
 5 Mor. 286 509 
 
xxi TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 i PAGE 
 
 Artola Hermanos in re (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 640; 59 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 254; 62 L. T. 781; 7 Mor. 80 76 
 
 Ash in re, ex parte Fisher (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 636; 41 L. J. Bank 
 
 62; 26 L. T. 931; 23 W. R. 849 103, 104 
 
 Ash in re (1913), ex parte Hatt, W. N. 375; 110 L. T. 48; 58 S. J. 
 
 174; 30 T. L. R. 194; 21 Man. 15 514 
 
 ■Ashby in re, ex parte Wreyford (1892), 1 Q. B. 872; 66 L. T. 
 
 353; 40 W. R. 430; 9 Mor. 77 175, 287, 289 
 
 Ashley v. Brown (1889), 17 O. A. R. 500 343 
 
 Ashton in re, ex parte McGowan (1891), 64 L. T. 28; 39 W. R. 
 
 320 ; 8 Mor. 72 363 
 
 Ashwell in re, ex parte Salaman (1912), 1 K. B. 390; 81 L. J. 
 
 K. B. 360; 106 L. T. 190; 56 Sol. J. 189; 19 Man. 49 146, 148 
 
 Ashwin in re and ex parte (1891), 8 Mor. 130 497 
 
 Ashworth ex parte, in re Hoare. See In re Hoare ex parte Ash- 
 worth. 
 Ashworth and Outram ex parte and in re (1894), 63 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 308 ; 69 L. T. 259 ; 10 Mor. 175 592 
 
 Asphaltic Wood Pavement Co. (1885), 30 Ch. D. 216, 224; 54 
 
 L. J. Ch. 460; 33 W. R. 513; 53 L. T. 65 262, 324 
 
 Associated Newspapers Co. ex parte, in re Jones Bros. (1912). 
 
 See In re Jones Bros, ex parte Associated Newspaper Co. 
 Associated Portland Cement Mfgs., Tolhurst v. See Tolhurst v. 
 
 Associated Portland Cement Mfgs. 
 Atcham Board of Guardians ex parte, in re Dickin. See In re 
 
 Dickin ex parte Atcham Board of Guardians. 
 Atherton in re (1912), 2 K. B. 251; 81 L. J. K. B. 791; 106 L. T. 
 
 641 ; 56 S. J. 446 ; 19 Man. 126 507 
 
 Athlumney in re, ex parte Wilson (1898), 2 Q. B. 547; 67 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 935 ; 79 L. T. 303 220, 632 
 
 Atkins ex parte, Buck. 479 471 
 
 Atkinson (1852), 2 D. M. & G. 140 309 
 
 Atkinson in re (1840), 1 M. D. & D. 238 260, 261 
 
 Atkinson ex parte and in re (1892), 9 Mor. 193 138 
 
 Atkinson v. Casserley (1910), 22 O. L. R. 527 258 
 
 Attorney in re an (1886), 3 M. L. R. 316 12 
 
 Attorney-General v. Cox, 3 H. L. C. 240 440 
 
 Attorney-General of Canada, Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. See Grand 
 
 Trunk Ry. Co. v. Attorney-General of Canada. 
 Attorney-General (Ont.) v. Attorney- General (Can.), Voluntary 
 
 Assignments Case; (1894), A. C. 189; 63 L. J. P. C. 59. 
 
 22, 100, 176, 558 
 Attorney-General (Ont.) v. Attorney-General (Dom.) (1896), 
 
 A. C. 348, 366, 369 24 
 
 Attorney-General (Ont.) v. Attorney-General (Dom.) (1910), 
 
 A. C. 637, 645 27 
 
 Attorney-General of Canada v. Sam Chak (1914), 44 N. S. R. 19; 
 
 7 B. L. R. 416 568 
 
 Attree in re, ex parte Ward (1907), 2 K. B. 868; 77 L J. K. B. 
 
 130; 51 Sol. J. 687; 97 L. T. 641; 15 Mans. 19 445 
 
 Attwood v. Pett (1907), 9 O. W. R. 173, 178, 748 451, 452 
 
 Auriferous Properties Ltd. in re (1) (1898), 1 Ch. 691; 67 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 367; 79 L. T. 71; 5 Mans. 260 323 
 
 Austen ex parte (1837), 2 Dea. 533 115 
 
 Austin in re and ex parte (1876), 4 Ch. D. 13; 46 L. J. Bank 1; 
 
 35 L. T. 529; 25 W. R. 51 270, 393, 394, 395, 506, 510 
 
 Austin in re, ex parte Sheffield (1879), 10 Ch. D. 434; 40 L. T. 
 
 15 ; 27 W. R. 622 281, 393, 395, 506 
 
 Austin in re, ex parte Yalden (1876), 4 Ch. D. 129; 46 L. J. 
 
 Bank 59; 35 L. T. 720 268 
 
 Austin, Deveber v. See Deveber v. Austin. 
 
 Austin v. Gordon (1872), 32 U. C. Q. B 621 539 
 
 Auto Experts Ltd. in re, ex parte Tanner (1921), 19 O. W. N. 
 
 532; 61 C. B. R. 418 (Orde, J.), affd. (1921) 20 O. W. N. 2 
 
 (App. Div) 244, 460, 480, 482, 647 
 
 Ayers, Levi v. See Levi v. Ayers. 
 
 Ayling, Dominion Bank v. See Dominion Bank v. Ayling. 
 
TABLE OF CASES. xxxi 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Ayling, Ryan & Hart, Dominion Bank v. See Dominion Bank 
 
 v. Ayling, Ryan & Hart. 
 Aylmer in re, ex parte Bischoffsheim (No. 2) (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 
 
 258; 57 L. J. Q. B. 168; 38 W. R. 231 220, 225, 524 
 
 Aylmer in re, ex parte Crane (1894), 1 Mans. 391 539 
 
 Aynsworth ex parte (1799), 4 Ves. 678 433 
 
 Ayoup, R. v. See R. v. Ayoup. 
 
 Ayshrord in re, ex parte Lovering (1887), 35 W. R. 652; 4 Mor. 
 
 164 S91 
 
 Back, Cairney v. See Cairney v. Back. 
 
 Bacon ex parte, in re Bond. See Bond in re, ex parte Bacon. 
 
 Badcock in re (1886), 3 Mor. 138 521 
 
 Badger ex parte (1800), 4 Ves. 165 455 
 
 Badham in re, ex parte Palmer (1893), 69 L. T. 356; 10 Mor. 
 
 252 102, 342, 354, 358, 363 
 
 Bagge v. Mawby (1853) , 8 Ex. 641 480 
 
 Bagley in re (1911), 1 K. B. 317; 80 L. J. K. B. 168; 103. L. T. 
 
 470; 55 Sol. J. 48; 18 Man. 1 82, 173, 300 
 
 Bagshaw ex parte, in re Ker (1879). See In re Ker. 
 
 Bailey Cobalt Mines Ltd. v. Benson (1919), 13 O. W. N. 102. .322, 555 
 
 Bailey v. Johnson (1872), L. R. 7 Ex. 263; 41 L. J. Ex. 211; 20 
 
 W. R. 1013; 27 L. T. 714 544 
 
 Bailey, Read v. See Read v. Bailey. 
 
 Bailey v. Thurston & Co. (1903), 1 K. B. 137; 72 L. J. K. B. 36; 
 
 51 W. R. 162; 88 L. T. 43; 10 Mans. 1 296 
 
 Bainbridge ex parte, in re Fletcher. See In re Fletcher. 
 
 Baines in re (1902), 86 L. T. 691 218, 222 
 
 Baines v. Wright (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 330; 55 L. J. Q. B. 99; 
 
 54 L. T. 724 440 
 
 Baker in re, Bray's Claim, 3 Ch. Ch. 499 440 
 
 Baker in re, ex parte (1887), 58 L. T. 234; 36 W. R. 558; 5 Mor. 5 132 
 Baker, Sutton Co. ex parte, in re Burnand. See In re Burnand 
 
 ex parte Baker, Sutton & Co. 
 
 Baker v. Adam (1910), 15 Com. Cases, 227, 239 325 
 
 Baker v. Dawbarn (1872) , 19 Gr. 113 471 
 
 Baker, Palmer v. See Palmer v. Baker. 
 
 Baker, Smith v. See Smith v. Baker. 
 
 Baker, West v. See West v. Baker. 
 
 Balbirnie in re, ex parte Jameson (1876), 3 Ch. D. 488; 45 L. J. 
 
 Bank 156; 34 L. T. 857; 35 L. T. 533 217 
 
 Baldocchi v. Spada, 27 C. L. T. 485; (1907), 38 S. C. R. 577; 
 
 8 O. W. R. 705; 7 O. W. R. 325 343 
 
 Baldwin v. Peterman (1866), 16 U. C. C. P. 310; 2 U. C. Q. J. 
 
 N. S. 128 229 
 
 Bale ex parte, in re O'Gorman. See O'Gorman in re, ex parte 
 
 Bale. 
 Balfour, Macdonald v. See Macdonald v. Balfour. 
 Ball ex parte, in re Hutchinson. See In re Hutchinson ex parte 
 
 Ball. 
 Ball ex parte, in re Shepherd. See In re Shepherd ex parte Ball 
 Ball ex parte, in re Simonson. See In re Simonson ex parte Ball 
 Ball, Bateman v. See Bateman v. Ball. 
 Ball, Grimsby v. See Grimsby v. Ball. 
 
 Ball v. Tennant, 25 O. R. 50; (1894), 21 O. A. R. 602 294 
 
 Bailer ex parte, in re O'Sullivan (1892). See In re, O'Sullivan. 
 Bamford In re, ex parte Games (1879), 12 Ch. D. 314; 40 L. T. 
 
 789; 27 W. R. 744 95, 101, 107, 108, 111, 112, 341 
 
 Bamford, ex parte (1808), 15 Ves. 449 61 
 
 Banco de Portugal v. Waddell (1880), 5 App. Cas. 161; 49 K J. 
 
 Bank 33; 42 L. T. 698; 28 W. R. 477 447, 468 
 
 Bancroft v. Mitchell (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 549; 36 L. J. Q B. 257; 
 
 16 L. T. 558 536 
 
 Bank of B. N. A. Ben Allack v. See Ben Allack v. Bank of Br. 
 
 N. A. 
 
 Bank of B. N. A. v. Wood (1910), 14 W. L. R. 34 337 
 
 Bank of England v. Vagliano Bros. (1891), A. C. 107 27 
 
 Bank of Hamilton v. Kramer Irwin (1912), 1 D. L. R. 475; 20 
 
 O. W. R. 999 ; 3 O. W. N. 603 142 
 
xxxii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Bank of Hamilton v. Scott, 24 C. L. T. 268; (1904), 3 0. W. R. 
 
 716, 717. . . . 511 
 
 Bank of Hamilton v. Tamblyn (1888), 16 O. R. 247 349, 351 
 
 Bank of Ireland, Deering v. See Deering v. Bank of Ireland. 
 
 Bank of London v. Wallace (1889), 13 P. R. 176 265 
 
 Banks, Lloyd v. See Lloyd v. Banks. 
 
 Bank of Montreal v. Black (1894), 9 M. L. R. 439 64 
 
 Bank of Montreal, Eastman v. See Eastman v. Bank of Mont- 
 Bank of Montreal v. Little (1870), 17 Gr. 313, 685 69, 159 
 
 Bank of Montreal v. McTavish (1867), 13 Gr. 395 353 
 
 Bank of Montreal, Nelles v. See Nelles v. Bank of Montreal. 
 
 Bank of Montreal v. Stair (1918), 44 0. L. R. 79 345, 348 
 
 Bank of New Brunswick, in re and ex parte Deveber. See 
 
 Deveber in re and ex parte Bank of New Brunswick. 
 Bank of Nova Scotia, Reg. v. See Reg. v. Bank of Nova Scotia. 
 Bank of Ottawa, ex parte in re Patent Cloth-Board Co. See Pa- 
 tent Cloth-Board Co., in re ex parte Bank of Ottawa. 
 Bank of Ottawa, Allen v. See Allen v. Bank of Ottawa. 
 Bank of Ottawa, Hammond v. See Hammond v. Bank of Ottawa. 
 Bank of Ottawa v. Newton (1906), 4 W. L. R. 508; 16 Man. L. R. 
 
 242 443 
 
 Bank of Scotland v. McLeod (1914), A. C. 311; 83 L. J. P. C 
 
 250 ; 110 L. T. 946 78 
 
 Bank of Toronto v. Hall (1884) , 6 O. R. 653 467 
 
 Bank of Toronto, Roberts v. See Roberts v. Bank of Toronto. 
 Banker's Trust Corp., Blais v. See Blais v. Banker's Trust Corp. 
 Banks ex parte, in re Dowling. See in re Dowling. 
 Banner ex parte, in re Keyworth. See In re Keyworth, ex parte 
 
 Banner. 
 Banning, Canada Furniture Co. v. See Canada Furniture Co. 
 
 v. Banning. 
 Banque d' Echange du Canada, La v. Campbell (1885). 15 R. L. 
 
 373 409 
 
 Banque Jacques Cartier, Brigham v. See Brigham v. Banque 
 Jacques Cartier. 
 
 Barber v. C'rathern (1897), 28 O. R. 615 378, 379 
 
 Barber, Imperial Bank of Canada v. See Imperial Bank of Can- 
 ada v. Barber. 
 
 Barber v. Wade (1916) , 37 O. L. R. 459 439 
 
 Barclay, ex parte, 1 G. & J. 272 368 
 
 Barclay v. Sutton (1876), 7 P. R. 14 564 
 
 Barell ex parte, re Parnell. See Parnell in re, ex parte Barell. 
 Barker in re, ex parte Kilner (1879), 13 Ch. D. 245; 41 L T. 
 
 520; 28 W. R. 269 .'... 103 
 
 Barker re, ex parte Constable, re Jones. See in re Jones, ex 
 
 parte Constable, in re Barker 521 
 
 Barker, Collins v. See Collins v. Barker. 
 
 Barker v. Johnson (1889) , 60 L. T. 64 299 
 
 Barker, Johnston v. See Johnston v. Barker. 
 
 Barker, Jones v. See Jones v. Barker 
 
 Barker, Jones v. in re Wilson (1909). See in re Wilson 
 
 Barker v. Stickney (1919), 1 K. B. 121 251 
 
 Barker, Wood v. See Wood v. Barker. 
 
 Barker's Estate, Re (1875), 44 L. J. Ch. 487 365 
 
 Barlow in re, ex parte Thornber. See ex parte Thornber, in re 
 
 Barlow. 
 Barnard, Flint v. See Flint v. Barnard. 
 Barne, in re and ex parte (1886). 16 Q. B. D. 522; 3 Mor. 33.. 62 
 
 Barned s Banking Co. (1869) , L. R. 5 Ch. 18 440 
 
 Tsarned's Banking Co, Cbupland's Claim (1869), L. R. 8 Eq. 472. 440 
 Barned's Banking Co., in re ex parte Massey (1872), 39 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 635; 22 L. T. 853; 18 W. R. 818 ...,;.. 284 
 
 Barnes re, ex parte Quilter (1882), 30 W. R. 739 363 
 
 Barnes v. Freeland (1794) , 6 T. R 80 302, 352 
 
 Barnes v. McKay, 10 O. R. 167 . . 343 
 
 Barnett's Case (1875), L. R. 19 Eq. 449; 44 L. J Ch. 233; 23 
 
 W. R. 328 . 323 
 
TABLE OE CASES. xxxiii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Barnett in re, ex parte Reynolds (1885), IB Q. B. D. 169; 54 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 354; 53 L. T. 448; 33 W. R. 715: 2 Mor. 147 161 
 
 Barnett, Brandao v. See Brandao v. Barnett. 
 
 Barnett v King (1891), 1 Ch. 4; 60 L. J. Ch. 148; 63 L. T. 501; 
 
 39 W. R. 39 ; 7 Mor. 267 420 
 
 Barnett, Earl of Lewes v. See Lewes (Earl of) v. Barnett. 
 
 Barnett v. Poole, 23 Tex. 217 73 
 
 Barr's Trusts, Re (1857), 4 K. & J. 219; 27 L. J. Ch. 548.... 41, 309 
 Barrand in re, ex parte Leman (1876), 4 Ch. D. 23; 46 L. J. Bank 
 
 38; 35 L. T. 422; 25 W. R. 65 40, 308 
 
 Barrell ex parte, re Parnell. See in re Parnell, ex parte Barrell. 
 
 Barrett, Re (1880), 5 O. A. R. 206 45, 46, 266, 275, 293 
 
 Barrie, Campbell v. See Campbell v. Barrie. 
 
 Barrow ex parte, in re Andrews. See in re Andrews, ex parte 
 
 Barrow. 
 Barrow, Coles v. See Coles v. Barrow. 
 Barry ex parte, in re Pox. See in re Pox, ex parte. Barry. 
 Barter v. Dubuex (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 413; 50 L. J. Q. B. 527; 29 
 
 W. R. 622; 44 L. T. 596 300, 301 
 
 Barter ex parte, re Walker. See in re Walker, ex parte Barter. 
 Bartels, Shewan & Co. Ltd. v. Winnipeg Cigar Co. (1909), 10 
 
 W. L. R. 263 366 
 
 Bartley v. Hodges (1861), 1 B. & S. 375; 30 L. J. Q. B. 352 537 
 
 Bartley's Trustee v. Hill (1921), 1 C. B. R. 477; 20 O. W. N. 
 
 170 (Middleton, J.) 663 
 
 Barton ex parte, in re Phillips. See in re Phillips, ex parte Bar- 
 ton. 
 Bartrum, Couldery v. See Couldery v. Bartrum. 
 
 Barwis ex parte (1855) , 6 D. M. & G. 762 488 
 
 Bass, Bird v. See Bird v. Bass. 
 
 Bastable's Trustee, Pearce v. See Pearce v. Bastable's Trustee. 
 
 Bastien, in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 457 261 
 
 Bateman, Brown v. See Brown v. Bateman. 
 
 Bateman and Co. v. Ball (1887), 56 L. J. Q. B. 291 262 
 
 Bates in re, ex parte Lindsey, 35 W. R. 668; (1887-8) 57 L. T. 
 
 417; 4 Mor. 192 606 
 
 Bates in re, ex parte Hobbs (1892), 8 T. L. R. 44; 9 Mor. 25. .577, 603 
 Bates ex parte, in re Pannell. See in re Pannell, ex parte Bates. 
 
 Bates v. Cannon (1908), 8 W. L. R. 575; 18 M. L. R. 7 286 
 
 Batey in re, ex parte Emmanuel (1881), 17 Ch. D. 35; 50 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 305 ; 44 L. T. 832 ; 29 W. R. 526 261 
 
 Batey in re, ex parte Neal (1880) 14 Ch. D. 579; 43 L. T. 264; 
 
 28 W. R. 875 419, 420 
 
 Bath ex parte, in re Phillips. See in re Phillips, ex parte Bath. 
 Batson in re, ex parte Hastie (1894), 1 Mans. 45; 70 L. T. 382. . 643 
 Battams ex parte, in re Wenham. See Wenham in re, ex parte 
 
 Battams. 
 Batten re, ex parte Milne (1889), 22 Q. B. D 685; 58 L. J. Q B 
 
 338; 37 W. R. 499; 6 Mor. 110 395 
 
 Baum in re, ex parte Cooper (1878), 10 Ch. D. 313; 48 L. J. 
 
 Bank 54; 39 L. T. 523; 27 W. R. 299 105 
 
 Baum, ex parte, re Edwards. See in re Edwards, ex parte Baum. 
 Baxter v. Central Bank, re Central Bank. See Central Bank, Re, 
 
 Baxter v. Central Bank. 
 
 Baxter v. International Steel Co. (1908), 10 Que. P. R. 27 556 
 
 Baxter v. Pritchard (1834) , 1 A. & E. 456 103 
 
 Bayly ex parte, re Hart. See in re Hart, ex parte Bayly. 
 
 Bayly v. Schofield (1813), 1 M. & S 338; 2 Rose, 100 116 
 
 Beal, Smith v. See Smith v. Beal. 
 
 Beale in re, ex parte Corbridge (1876), 4 Ch. D. 246; 46 L. J. 
 
 Bank 17 ; 35 L. T. 768 ; 25 W. R. 324 452 
 
 Beall in re and ex parte (1894), 2 Q. B. 135; 63 L. J. Q B. 425; 
 
 70 L. T. 643; 1 Mans. 203 506, 514, 636 
 
 Beall in re, ex parte O. R. (1899), 1 Q. B. 688; 68 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 462; 80 L. T. 267; 6 Man 163 282, 310 
 
 B.C. — O 
 
XXXiv TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Beard in re, ex parte Lewis (1893), 69 L. T. R. 259; 10 Mor. 
 
 178 571, 590 
 
 Beardmore ex parte, in re Clark. See in re Clark, ex parte Beard- 
 more. 
 Beardsley, Langley v. See Langley v. Beardsley. 
 
 Beasley, ex parte, 2 M. & A. 632 407 
 
 Beattie v. Holmes (1898), 29 O. K. 264 370 
 
 Beattie v. Wenger (1897), 24 O. A. R. 72 377 
 
 Beatty v. Samuel (1882), 29 Gr. 105 440 
 
 Beaty, re (1880) , 6 O. A. R. 40 439 
 
 Beauchamp in re, ex parte (1904), 1 K. B. 572; 73 L. J. K. B. 
 
 311; 90 L. T. 594; 52 W. R. 545; 11 Man. 5 134 
 
 Beauchamp Bros, in re, ex parte Carr (1884), 75 L. T. 315; 3 
 
 Mans. 207 470 
 
 Beauchamp, Lovell v. See Lovell v. Beauchamp. 
 
 Beaudin v. Roy (1873), 20 L. C. J. 308; 5 Rev. Leg. 232 229 
 
 Beaumont, ex parte, re Edmontson. See in re Bdmontson, ex 
 parte Beaumont. 
 
 Beavis v. Maquire (1882), 7 O. A. R. 704 355 
 
 Bebro, in re (1900), 2 Q. B. 316; 69 L. J. Q. B. 618; 48 W. R. 560; 
 
 82 L. T. 773; 7 Man. 284 138, 139, 141 
 
 Becher v. Blackburn (1873), 23 U. C. C. P. 207 .171, 243, 536 
 
 Becker ex parte, re Lewis. See in re Lewis, ex parte Becker. 
 Beckham v. Drake (1849), 2 H. L. C. 579, 626; 11 M. & W. 315; 
 
 13 J. M. 921 294, 295, 296, 297 
 
 Bedell re. ex parte Crosbie (1877), 7 Ch. D. 123; 47 L J. Bank. 
 
 19 ; 37 L. T. 583 363 
 
 Bedell re, ex parte Gilbey (1878), 8 Ch. D. 248; 47 L. J. Bank. 
 
 49 ; 38 L. T. 728 ; 26 W. R. 768 363 
 
 Beech, Godkin v. See Godkin v. Beech. 
 Beedom, Hadley v. See Hadley v. Beedom. 
 
 Beemer v. Oliver (1884-5), 10 O. A. R 656 128 
 
 Beer, in re (1903), 1 K. B. 628; 72 L. J. K. B. 366; 88 L T 334- 
 
 51 W. R. 422; 19 T. L. R. 218; 10 Man. 136 .' 226, 542 
 
 Beer v. Hooper, 32 Miss. 246 73 
 
 Beesley in re (1914) , 109 L. T. 910 '.'..'." 98 
 
 Beeston in re, ex parte Board of Trade (1899), 1 Q. B 626; 68 
 L. J. Q. B. 344; 80 L. T. 66; 47 W. R. 475; 6 Man 27.. 
 
 D i • • ■ ■ 42, 120, 132, 191 
 
 Beesty ex parte, in re Lowenthal See Lowenthal in re, ex parte 
 
 Beesty. 
 Beetham in re, ex parte Broderick (1887), 18 Q. B. D 766- 56 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 635; 35 W. R. 613 80 
 
 Beeton & Co. Ltd. (1913), 2 Ch. 279; 82 L. J. Ch. 464; 108 L T. 
 
 918; 57 S. J. 626; 20 Mans. 222 453, 463, 464 
 
 Behrens, Montefiore v. See Monteflore v. Behrens 
 
 Behrend's Trusts, re (1911), 1 Ch. 687; 80 L. J.' Ch. 394; 104 
 
 L. T. 626; 55 Sol. J. 459; 18 Mans. Ill 310, 373, 374 
 
 Belanger v. Union Abitibi Mining Co. (1917), 32 D. L R 700- 
 
 25 Que. K. B. 376 ' 555 
 
 Belding Lumber Co. in re (1911), 18 O. "W. R. 668; 2 6. W. N. 
 
 739, 755 130 593 
 
 Belisle, L'Union St. Jacques de Montreal' v ' ' See L'Union St! 
 Jacques de Montreal v. Belisle. 
 
 Bell in re (1885), 2 Mor. 291 586 
 
 SiJ ln ^ ex parte Debtor (1908) , 99 L. T. 939 285, 291 
 
 Bell y Chartered Trusts and Executor Co. (1919), 46 O. L. R. 
 
 I9*i 243 
 
 Bell, Graham v. See Graham v. Beil 
 Bell, Rickaby v. See Rickaby v. Bell. 
 
 r!! I" S ttaW ^7o r ^ st , a , nd De P° si t Co. (1897), 28 O. R. 519 79 
 
 Bell v Ross (1885), 11 O. A. R. 458 443, 487 
 
 Bell, Russell v. See Russell v. Bell. 
 
 Be lyse v. McGinn (1891) 2 Q. B. 227; 6 L. T. 3l8 . . . . 88 
 
 BeltOH re (1913), 108 L. T. 344, 345; 57 Sol. J. 343; 29 T. L. R. 
 
 0X0 g<J JJJg 
 
 BenalJack v. Bank of B. N. A.' (1905)! 36 S.*C. R." 120 7.7.7.343! 347 
 
TABLE OF CASES. xxxv 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Bennet in re, ex parte Close (1877), 5 Ch. D. 145; 46 L. J. Bank. 
 
 81; 25 W. R. 504; 36 L. T. 429 508, 514 
 
 Bennett in re, ex parte O. R. (1907), 1 K. B. 149; 76 L. J. K. B. 
 
 134; 95 L. T. 887; 95 L. T. 887; 14 Mans. 6 373, 374 
 
 Bennett, ex parte (1805), 10 Ves. 381 256, 258 
 
 Bennett v. Gamgee (1876) 2 Ex. D. 11; 46 L. J. Ex. 33; 35 L. T. 
 
 764; 25 W. R. 293 265 
 
 Bennett, Mills v. See Mills v. Bennett. 
 
 Bennett, Oakley v. See Oakley v. Bennett. 
 
 Benoist, in re (1909), 2 K. B. 784; 78 L. J. K. B. 1105; 101 L. T. 
 
 432; 53 S. J. 700; 16 Mans. 276 491 
 
 Benson, Bailey Cobalt Mines, Ltd. v. See Bailey Cobalt Mines, 
 
 Ltd. v. Benson. 
 
 Bent in re, ex parte MacKenzie (1873), 42 L. J. Bank. 25 350 
 
 Bentham Mills Co., re (1879), 11 Ch. D. 900; 48 L. J. Ch. 671; 
 
 28 W. R. 26 306 
 
 Bentley's Trustee v. Hill (1921), 1 C. B. R. 477; 20 O. W. N. 
 
 170 (Middleton, J.) 177 
 
 Benwell ex parte, in re Hutton. See in re Hutton. 
 
 Benzon in re, Bower v. Chetwynd (1914), 2 Ch. 68; 83 L. J. Ch. 
 
 658; 110 L. T. 927; 30 T. L. R. 439; 58 S. J. 430; 21 Man. 
 
 8 155, 156, 315, 330 
 
 Bernasconi v. Farebrother (1830) , 10 B. & C. 549 116 
 
 Bertrand v. Canadian Rubber Co. (1897), 12 M. L. R. 27 64 
 
 Bertrand v. Parkes (1892) , 8 M. L. R. 175 45 
 
 Berry in re, ex parte Wilkinson (1882), 22 Ch. D. 788; 52 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 657; 48 L. T. 495; 31 W. R. 649 104, 349 
 
 Berry in re, Duffield v. Williams (1896), 1 Ch. 939; 65 L. J. Ch. 
 
 245; 74 L. T. 306; 44 W. R. 346; 3 Mans. 11 139, 150, 156 
 
 Besley and Wilson ex parte, re Carpenter (1890). See in re 
 
 Carpenter, ex parte Besley and Wilson. 
 Best in re, and ex parte (1881), 18 Ch. D. 488; 51 L. J. Ch. 293; 
 
 45 L. T. 95 496 
 
 Bertram v. Pendry (1877), 27 U. C. C. P. 371 45, 260, 272 
 
 Betton v. Valentine, 1 Curt. (U.S.) 163 73 
 
 Betts in re, and ex parte (1897), 1 Q. B. 50; 66 L. J. Q. B. 14; 
 
 75 L. T. 292 ; 45 W. R. 98 ; 3 Man. 287 137 
 
 Betts in re, ex parte O. R. (1901), 2 K. B. 39; 70 L. J. K. B. 
 
 511; 84 L. T. 427; 49 W. R. 447; 8 Man. 227 541, 543 
 
 Bevan & Co. in re, ex parte Smith (1881), 45 L. T. 447 509 
 
 Bevan, Doe v. See Doe v. Bevan. 
 
 Beveridge in re, ex parte MacDonald (1871), 24 L. T. 475 551 
 
 Beyfus ex parte, re Saville. See in re Saville ex parte Beyfus. 
 
 Beyfus v. Poyser, in re Perkins. See in re Perkins. 
 
 Beyts & Craig in re, ex parte Cooper (1894), 10 R. 143; 70 L. T. 
 
 561; 42 W. R. 432; 1 Man. 56 146 
 
 Biddlecombe v. Bond, 4 A. & E. 332 302 
 
 Big Cities, Thompson v. See Thompson v. Big Cities. 
 
 Bills v. Smith (1865), 6 B. & S. 314; 34 L. J. Q. B. 68, 70; 12 L. T. 
 
 22 341, 345, 346, 348 
 
 Bingley, Waite v. See Waite v. Bingley. 
 
 Binns in re, ex parte Hale" (1875), 1 Ch. D. 285; 45 L. J. Bank. 
 
 21; 33 L. T. 706; 24 W. R. 300 481, 483 
 
 Birbeck in re (1913), 2 Ch. 34 287 
 
 Birch v. Cropper, 14 A. C. 525 394 
 
 Bird's Hill Sand Co., Box v. See Box v. Bird's Hill Sand Co. 
 Bird's Hill Land Co., Box v. See Box v. Bird's Hill Land Co. 
 Bird in re, ex parte Hill (1883), 23 Ch. D. 695; 52 L. J. Ch. 903; 
 
 49 L. T. 278; 32 W. R. 177 346 
 
 Bird v. Bass (1843), 6 M. & G. 143; 6 Scott N. R. 928 361, 362 
 
 Bird v. Johnson (1854) , 18 Jur. 976 286 
 
 Bird v. Philpott (1900), 1 Ch. 822; 69 L. J. Ch. 487; 82 L. T. 
 
 110; 7 Man. 251 281, 282, 374, 393, 394, 506 
 
 Bird v Sidgwick (1692). 1 Salk. 110 60 
 
 Birkin in re (1896), 3 Man. 291 137 
 
 Birmingham Gas Co. ex parte, in re Fanshaw. See Fanshaw in 
 
 re ex parte Birmingham Gas. 
 Bin whistle v. Vardle, 5 B. & C. 438; 2 Bell Com. 690 71, 72 
 
xvxv i TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Bischoffsheim ex parte, in re Aylmer (No. 2). See In re Aylmer 
 
 ex parte Bischoffsheim. 
 
 Bishop in re, ex parte Claxton (1891), 8 Mor. 221 592 
 
 Bishop in re, ex parte Langley (1879), 13 Ch. D. 110; 49 L. J. 
 
 Bank 17; 28 W. R. 174; 41 L. T. 388 498, 604 
 
 Bishop ex parte, in re Tonnies. See Tonnies in re, ex parte 
 
 Bishop. 
 
 Bishop v Trustees of Bedford Charity, 1 El. & El. 697 305 
 
 Bishop Const. Co. Ltd. in re, Hains v. Garth (1914), 15 D. L. R. 
 
 911; 23 Que. K. B. 284 262, 462 
 
 Bishop of Rochester v. Le Fanu (1906), 2 Ch. 513 484 
 
 Bittlestone v. Cooke, 6 E. & B. 296; (1856), 25 L. J. Q. B. 281. 
 
 102, 103, 104 
 Bixel, Labatt v. See Labatt v. Bixel. 
 Black & Co.'s Case (1872), L. R. 8 Ch. 254; 42 L. J. Ch. 442; 
 
 28 L. T. 50 ; 21 W. R. 249 323 
 
 Black v. Fountain (1876) , 23 Gr. 174 355 
 
 Blackburn in re W. & Co. (1899), 2 Ch. 725; 68 L. J. Ch. 764; 
 
 48 W. R. 186; 81 L. T. 520 348 
 
 Blackburn ex parte, in re Cheeseborough. See In re Cheese- 
 borough ex parte Blackburn. 
 
 Blackburn, Becher v. See Becher v. Blackburn. 
 
 Blackburne in re, ex parte Strouts (1892), 9 Mor. 249 425 
 
 Blackhurst in re and ex parte (1858), 3 De G. & J. 39; 27 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 24 529 
 
 Blacklock v. Dobie (1876) , 1 C. P. D. 265 98 
 
 Blackpool Motor Car Co. in re (1901), 1 Ch. 77; 70 L. J. Ch. 61; 
 
 49 W. R. 124; 8 Man. 193 346, 352, 353, 355, 420 
 
 Blain ex parte, in re Dean. See Dean in re, ex parte Blain. 
 Blain ex parte, in re Sawers. See In re Sawers. 
 
 Blain v. Peaker (1889), 18 O. R. 109 93, 203 
 
 Blais v. Banker's Trust Corp. (1913), 25 W. L. R. 653; 14 D. L. 
 
 R. 277 556, 561, 562 
 
 Blake in re, ex parte Burnett (1841), 2 M. D. & D. 357 468 
 
 Blake in re, ex parte Coker (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 652; 44 L. J. 
 
 Bank 126 ; 24 W. R. 145 164, 301, 535 
 
 Blake, Revell v. See Revell v. Blake. 
 
 Blake v. Williams (1828) , 6 Pick. (Mass.) 285 73 
 
 Blakeley in re, ex parte Aachener Disconto Gesselschaft (1892), 
 
 9 Mor. 173 425, 426 
 
 Blakely Ordinance Co. in re (1869), L. R. 8 Eq. 244 440 
 
 Blanchet, Robillard v. See Robillard v. Blancnet. 
 
 Blane ex parte, in re Hallett & Co. See Hallett & Co. in re 
 
 ex parte Blane. 
 
 Bleasdell v. Townsend (1883) , 3 C. L. T. 509 20 
 
 Block, Board of Trade v. See Board of Trade v. Block. 
 
 Blong v. Fitzgerald (1893), 15 P. R. 467 293 
 
 Blount v. Whitely (1899), 79 L. T. 635; 6 Mans. 48 154, 156, 
 
 158, 174, 196 
 
 Bloxam v. Sanders (1825) , 4 B. & C. 949 302 
 
 Bluck in re, 56 L. J. Q. B. 607; 35 W. R. 720; (1887-8), 57 L. T. 
 
 419; 4 Mor. 273 -. 427, 491 
 
 Boaler v. Power (1910), 2 K. B. 229; 79 L. J. K. B. 486; 102 L. T. 
 
 450; 54 Sol. J. 360; 17 Mans. 125 134, 294, 599 
 
 Board v. Board (1919) , A. C. 956 13 
 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Beeston. See Beeston in re, 
 
 ex parte Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Browne. See Browne in re, ex 
 
 parte Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Burr. See In re Burr ex parte 
 
 Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Calderwood. See Calderwood 
 
 in re, ex parte Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Griffin. See Griffin in re, ex parte 
 
 Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Heap. See Heap in re, ex parte 
 
 Board of Trade. 
 
TABLE OF CASUS. xxxvii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Hedley. See In re Hedley ex 
 
 parte Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Lamb. See In re Lamb ex parte 
 
 Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Marsh. See Marsh in re, ex parte 
 
 Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in Te Mutton. See Mutton in re, ex 
 
 parte Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Oswell. See In re Oswell, ex parte 
 
 Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Parfett. See Parfett in re, 
 
 ex parte Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Pilling. See In re Pilling, 
 
 ex parte Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Pryor. See In re Pryor, ex parte 
 
 Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Shirley. See In re Shirley, ex 
 
 parte Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Stainton. See Stainton in re, 
 
 ex parte Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Stevens. See In re Stevens, 
 
 ex parte Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Strand. See Strand in re, ex 
 
 parte Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Wallis. See In re Wallis, ex parte 
 
 Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade ex parte, in re Webb. See In re Webb, ex parte 
 
 Board of Trade. 
 Board of Trade v. Block, 13 App. Cas. 570; 58 L. J. Q. B. 113; 
 
 (1888), 37 W. R. 259; 59 L. T. 734 497, 521 
 
 Bodington, Wilkes v. See Bodington v. Wilkes. 
 
 Boddington v. Castelli (1853), 1 E. & B. 879; 23 L. J. Q. B. 31. 
 
 283, 298 
 Bogg, Mason v. See Mason v. Bogg. 
 Boice, McDonald v. See McDonald v. Boice. 
 Boisseau, Stephens v. See Stephens v. Boisseau. 
 
 Boler ex parte, 1 M. D. & D. 602 407 
 
 Boldero in re, ex parte Pease (1812), 1 Rose 232 549 
 
 Bolland ex parte, in re Ackary. See Ackary in re, ex parte 
 
 Bolland. 
 Bolland ex parte, in re Dysart. See In re Dysart, ex parte 
 
 Bolland. 
 Bollert, Gillard v. See Gillard v. Bollert. 
 
 Bolt & Iron Co. in re (1885), 10 P. R. 437 260 
 
 Bolton ex parte, in re Taylor. See In re Taylor, ex parte Bolton. 
 Bolton's Library Co., Mason v. See Mason v. Bolton's Library 
 
 Co. 
 Bolus, Reg. v. See Reg. v. Bolus. 
 Bonacino in re, ex parte Discount Banking Co., 10 R. 147- 
 
 1 Man. 59 , \ 439 
 
 Bonacino in re, Le Brasseur v. Bonacino (1912), 2 Ch 394- jd 
 
 L. J. Ch. 674; 107 L. T. 498; 56 S. J. 667; 19 Mans'. 224.'... 539 
 Bond in re, ex parte Bacon (1880), 17 Ch. D. 447; 29 W R 574- 
 
 44 L. T. 834 '. . . '490 
 
 Bond, Biddlecombe v. See Biddlecombe v. Bond. 
 
 Bonham in re, ex parte Postmaster-General (1879), 10 Ch D 
 
 595; 48 L. J. Bank 84; 40 L. T. 16; 27 W. R. 325 .' 140 
 
 Bonham ex parte, in re Tollemache. See In re Tollemache, 
 
 ex parte Bonham. 
 Bonnett, Allen v. See Allen v. Bonnett. 
 
 Bonneville & Hollander in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 378 (Panne- 
 ton, J.) 151 261, 559 
 
 Bonzolme & Co. ex parte, in re Roberts. See In re Roberts, 
 
 ex parte Bonzoline. 
 
 Boocock in re (1916) , 1 K. B. 816 362 
 
 Boon in re and ex parte (1879), 41 L. T. 42 • • • ■ ^ 
 
 Boone v. Martin (1920), 47 O. L. R. 205 (App. Div.) . . .'. .'.'.'.351 460 
 Boorman v. Nash (1829) , 9 B & C. 145 305 
 
xxxviij TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Booth v. Hutchinson, L. R. (1872-3), 15 Eq. 30; 42 L. J. Ch. 492; 
 
 27 L. T. 600 ; 21 W. R. 116 321- 
 
 Borland's Trustee v. Steel Brs. Ltd. (1901), 1 Ch. 279; 70 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 51; 49 W. R. 120 288 
 
 Borneman v. Wilson (1884), 28 Ch. D. 53; 54 L. J. Ch. 631; 51 
 
 L. T. 728; 33 W. R. 141 264 
 
 Boschock Proprietary Co. v. Fuke (1906), 1 Ch. 148; 75 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 201; 54 W. R. 359; 94 L. T. 398; 13 Mans. 100 307 
 
 Boscowitz, Griffiths v. See Griffiths v. Boscowitz. 
 
 Boston Richardson Mining Co., Eastern Trust Co. v. See Eastern 
 
 Trust Co. v. Boston Richardson Mining Co. 
 
 Boston Wood Rim Co. in re (1905), 5 O. W. R. 149 85 
 
 Bostwiek, Moorehouse v. See Moorehouse v. Bostwick. 
 Boswell v. Coaks (1883), 23 Ch. D. 302; 52 L. J. Ch. 465; 48 L. T. 
 
 929; 31 W. R. 540; 4 Mans. 52; affd. 11 A. C. 232; 55 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 761; 55 L. T. 32 257 
 
 Botcherby v. Lancaster (1834), 1 A. & E. 77 175 
 
 Bottomley in re and ex parte, 10 Mor. 272, 262 ... .218, 221, 222, 223 
 Bouchard ex parte, in re Moojin. See In re Moojin, ex parte 
 
 Bouchard. 
 Boucher, Fisher v. See Fisher v. Boucher. 
 Bourbeau Co. v. Stewart Macdonald Export Co. (1917), Que. 
 
 26 K. B. 315 43 8 
 
 Bourke v. Nutt in re Pulborough School Bd. See Pulborough 
 
 School Bd. in re Bourke v. Nutt. 
 Bourner ex parte, in re Bradley. See In re Bradley, ex parte 
 
 Bourner. 
 Boustead in re, ex parte Rogers (1881), 16 Ch. D. 665; 44 L. T. 
 
 357 74, 157, 162, 163, 164 
 
 Boustead, Hale v. See Hale v. Boustead. 
 
 Boustead v. Shaw (1879) , 27 Gr. 280 349 
 
 Boutts, Gibson v. See Gibson v. Boutts. 
 
 Bowen, Totten v. See Totten v. Bowen. 
 
 Bower v. Chetwynd, in re Benzon. See In re Benzon. 
 
 Bower v. Hett (1895), 2 Q. B. 51, 337; 64 L. J. Q. B. 483, 772; 
 
 72 L. T. 659; 73 L. T. 176; 43 W. R. 557; 44 W. R. 4 189, 191 
 
 Bower, Nicholson v. See Nicholson v. Bower. 
 
 Bowerman v. Phillips (1888), 15 O. A. R. 679 488 
 
 Bowes in re, ex parte Jackson (1880), 14 Ch. D. 725; 43 L. T. 
 
 272; 29 W. R. 253 101 
 
 Bowes in re, Strathmore v. Vane (1886), 33 Ci. D. 586; 35 W. R. 
 
 166; 55 L. T. 260 85 
 
 Bowie in re, ex parte Breull (1880), 16 Ch. D. 484; 50 L. J. Ch. 
 
 384; 29 W. R. 299; 43 L. T. 580 66 
 
 Bowker, Thunder Hill v. See Thunder Hill v. Bowker. 
 Bowker v. Burdekin (1843), 11 M. & W. 128; 12 L. J. Ex. 329. 
 
 94, 175, 581 
 Bowley, Reynolds v. See Reynolds v. Bowley. 
 Bowling & Webley's Contract in re (1895), 1 Ch. 663; 64 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 427 ; 8 Mor. 30 592 
 
 Bowman v. Malcolm (1843), 12 L. J. Ex. 397; 11 M. & W. 833. 
 
 364, 368 
 Bowman, Stuart v. See Stuart v. Bowman. 
 Bowman Ltd., Tilley v. See Tilley v. Bowman Ltd. 
 Bowsher, Davis v. See Davis v. Bowsher. ' 
 Box v. Bird's Hill Land Co. (1913), 24 W. L. R. 706; 23 M. L. R. 
 
 415 407 
 
 Box v. Bird's Hill Sand Co. (1913), 23 Man. L. R. 415; 12 D. L. R. 
 
 556; 24 W. L. R. 706; 4 W. W. R. 961 441 
 
 Boyd, Boynton v. See Boynton v. Boyd. 
 
 Boyd v. Glass (1883) , 8 O. A. R. 632- 350 
 
 Boyd, McDermott v., in re McHenry. See In re McHenry. 
 Boyes, Reg. v. See Reg. v. Boyes. 
 Boyes, Mayhen v. See Mayhen v. Boyes. 
 
 Boynton v. Boyd, 12 TJ. C. C. P. 334 45 
 
 Bozannet ex parte (1811), 1 Rose 181 550 
 
 Bradbrook in re, ex parte Hawkins (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 226; 37 
 W. R. 700; 58 L. J. Q. B. 442; 61 L. T 584; 6 Mor. 188 512 
 
TSBLE Oh' CU#A,'N. x.vxix 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Braden, Meriden Britannia Co. v. See Meriden Britannia Co. 
 
 v. Braden. • 
 
 Bradfield, Green v. See Green v. Bradfleld. 
 Bradford Old Band, Walker v. See Walker v. Bradford Old Band. 
 Bradlaugh, Clarke v. See Clarke v. Bradlaugh. 
 
 Bradley in re, ex parte Bourner (1910), 54 Sol. J. 444 406 
 
 Bradshaw, 1 G. & J. 90 468 
 
 Bradshaw, Fisher v. See Fisher v. Bradshaw. 
 
 Brady v. Otis (1874), 14 B. R. 345 198 
 
 Brail in re, ex parte Norton (1893), 2 Q. B. 381; 5 R. 440; 62 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 457; 69 L. T. 323; 41 W. R. 623; 10 Mor. 166. 
 
 201, 332, 370, 371 
 Bramble ex parte, in re Toleman. See Toleman in re, ex parte 
 
 Bramble. 
 Bramble ex parte, inre Toleman & England. See In re Toleman 
 
 & England. 
 Brampton Gas Co. (1902), 4 O. L. R. 509; 1 O. W. R. 543; 22 L. T. 
 
 370 . ■ 439 445 
 
 Brand v. Green.' 26'c 'l.'t. 279;' '(1900)," iJSM.'L. R. Yo'l.'.'.'.'. .. .' 561 
 
 Brand v. Griffin (1908), 1 A. L. R. 510; 9 W. L. R. 427; 13. 57 
 
 Brandao v. Barnett (1846), 6 M. & G. 630; 12 CI. & F. 787 85 
 
 Brandon ex parte, in re Trench. See In re Trench, ex parte 
 
 Brandon. 
 Brandon & Fletcher ex parte, in re Smith & Logan (1895). See 
 
 In re Smith & Logan. 
 Brandon v. McHenry (1891), 1 Q. B. 538; 60 L. J. Q. B. 448; 39 
 
 W. R. 372 ; 64 L. T. 59 543 
 
 Brandt's Sons & Co. v. Dunlop Rubber Co. (1905), A. C. 454, 461; 
 
 74 L. J. K. B. 898; 93 L. T. 495 337 
 
 Branson in re, ex parte Moore (1914), 3 K. B. 1086; 83 L. J. K. B. 
 
 1673 ; 111 L. T. 741 ; 21 Mans. 229 329 
 
 Branson in re, ex parte Trustee (1914), 2 K. B. 701; 83 L. J. 
 
 K. B. 1310; 110 L. T. 941; 58 Sol. J. 416: 21 Man. 160. 
 
 255, 265, 267 
 Bray's Claim, in re Baker. See Baker in re. Bray's Claim. 
 
 Brayley v. Ellis (1882), 1 O. R. 119; Affd. 9 O. A. R. 565 112, 349 
 
 Brearley, Ramsden v. See Ramsden v. Brearley. 
 
 Breese v. Knox (1897), 24 O. A. R. 203 349 
 
 Bremner in re (1889), 6 M. L. R. 73 12 
 
 Brenner & Co. in re N. Ltd. (1921), 49 O. L. R. 71; 19 O. W. N 
 
 445 (Orde, J.) .265 
 
 Brenner & Co. in re (1920), 19 O. W. N. 445 266 
 
 Brenner v. American Metal Co. (1920), 19 O. W. N. 251 266 
 
 Brenner v. American Metal Co. (1920), 1 C. B. R. 375; 55 D. L. R 
 
 702; 19 O. W. N. 239 (Latchford, J.) 265 
 
 Brett ex parte, in re Hodgson. See Hodgson in re, ex parte Brett. 
 Brett ex parte, in re Howe. See In re Howe, ex parte Brett. 
 
 Brett v. Levett (1810), 13 East. 213 130 
 
 Breull ex parte, in re Bowie. See In re Bowie, ex parte Breull. 
 
 Brewer v. Dew (1843), 11 M. & W. 625; 12 L J. Ex. 448 297 
 
 Brewers' Settlement in re (1896), 2 Ch. 503; 65 L. J. Ch. 821; 
 
 75 L. T. 177; 45 W. R. 8 43, 287 
 
 Brewin v. Briscoe (1859), 2 E. & E. 116; 28 L. J. Q. B 329. ... . 362 
 Brewin v. Short (1855), 5 E. & B. 227; 24 L. J. Q. B. 297, 300. 
 
 358, 364, 367 
 
 Brewster v. Canada Iron (1914), 7 O. W. N. 128 560, 561 
 
 Brick & Stone Co., Jameson v. See Jameson v. Brick & Stone Co. 
 Bridges, Hogg v. See Hogg v. Bridges. 
 
 Briggs v. Sowry' (1841), 8 M. & W. 729; 11 L. J. Ex. 193.461. 479, 484 
 Briggs & Co. in re, ex parte Wright (1906), 2 K. B. 209; 74 L. J. 
 
 K. B. 591; 95 L. T. 61 40, 84 
 
 Brigham v. Banque Jacques Cartier (1900), 30 S C. R. 429. .259, 412 
 
 Brigham v. Smith (1870) , 17 Gr. 512 325 
 
 Bright, Charles in re (1902), 18 T. L. R. 37; 51 W. R. 342 66 
 
 Bright, Charles ex parte and in re (1903), 19 T. L. R 203- 51 
 
 W. R. 342; (1900), W. N. 17 !. 61 
 
 Bright in re, ex parte Wingfield and Blew (1903), 1 K. B. 735; 
 
 72 L. J. K. B. 287; 10 Mans. 31 269. 461 
 
x l TABLE OF CAKES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Bright's Settlement (1879), 13 C'h. D. 413; 28 W. R. 551; 42 L. T. 
 
 308 309 
 
 Brightmore in re, ex parte May (1884), 14 O. B. D. 37; 33 W. R. 
 
 598; 51 L. T. 710; 1 Mor. 253 149, 160 
 
 Brigstocke in re and ex parte (1877), 4 Ch. D. 348; 46 L. J. Bank. 
 
 50; 35 L. T. 381; 25 W. R. 262 134 
 
 Brims ex parte, in re Palmer. See In re Palmer, ex parte Brims. 
 Brindley in re, ex parte Taylor & Co. (1906), 1 K. B. 377; 75 
 
 L. J. K. B. 211; 94 L. T. 116; 54 W. R. 301; 13 Man. 1. .97, 98, 128 
 Briscoe, Brewin v. See Brewin v. Briscoe. 
 
 ' Bristow v. Eastman (1793), 1 Esp. 172 241 
 
 British Columbia Fur & Trading Co., Cole v. See Cole v. 
 
 British Columbia Fur & Trading Co. 
 
 British Columbia Pottery Co. (1895), 4 B. C. R. 525 445 
 
 British Goldflelds of West Africa (1899), 2 Ch. 7; 68 L. J. Ch. 
 
 612; 80 L. T. 638; 47 W. R. 552; 6 Mans. 334 427, 428 
 
 British Union v. Rawson (1916), 2 Ch. 476 260 
 
 Britnor in re, ex parte Royle (1877), 46 L. J. Bank. 85; 25 
 
 W. R. 560 69 
 
 Briton Medical & General Life Association Ltd. (2) in re (1886), 
 
 12 O. R 441 ; 4 Cart. 639 26 
 
 Brittain v. Brown (1871), 24 L. T. 504 175, 363 
 
 Broad ex parte, in re Neck. See In re Neck, ex parte Broad. 
 Broadhurst ex parte, in re (1853), 2 D.- M. & G. 953; 22 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 21 ; 1* J. M. 964 - 130 
 
 Broadhurst, Walker v. See Walker v. Broadhurst. 
 
 Broadridge in re, ex parte Cyrus (1869), L. R. 5 Ch. 176; 21 
 
 L. T. 664 ; 18 W. R. 155 131, 132 
 
 Brock v. Cline (1906) , 8 O. W. R. 144 240 
 
 Brock & Patterson Ltd., Tooke Bros. Ltd. v. See Tooke Bros. 
 
 Ltd. v. Brock & Patterson Ltd. 
 Brock, Tooke Bros. v. See Tooke Bros. v. Brock. 
 Brocklebank in re, ex parte Dunn & Raeburn (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 
 
 461; 58 L. J. Q. B. 375; 37 W. R. 537; 61 L. T. 543; 6 Mor. 
 
 138 521 
 
 Brocklebank ex parte (1877), 6 Ch. D. 358; 46 L. J. Bank 113; 
 
 41 L. T. 113; 25 W. R. 859 127 
 
 Brochlehurst v Law (1857),' 7 E. & B. 176; 26 L. J Q. B. 107; 
 
 3 J. M. N. S. 436 477, 480 
 
 Broderick ex parte, in re Beetham. See In re Beetham, ex parte 
 
 Broderick. 
 
 Brodie v. Barry, 2 V. & B. 130 71 
 
 Brodwick v. Stillwell, in re Stillwell. See Stillwell in re, 
 
 Brodwick v. Stillwell. 
 Bromley, Glegg v. See Glegg v. Bromley. 
 
 Bromley v. Goodere (1744) , 1 Atk. 79 455 * 
 
 Bromley, Primrose v. See Primrose v. Bromley. 
 
 Brook v. Emerson (1906) 95 L. T. 821 360, 579 
 
 Brooke ex parte, in re Hassall. See In re Hassell, ex parte 
 
 Brooke. 
 Brooke, Fisken v. See Fisken v. Brooke. 
 Brooke & Sons, Dibb v. See Dibb v. Brooke & Sons. 
 Brooke, Newman v. See Newman v. Brooke. 
 Brooke v. Pearson (1859), 27 Beavon 181; 5 J. M. (N.S.) 781; 
 
 7 W. R. 638 43, 287 
 
 Brooks in re (1886), 3 Mor. 62 571 
 
 Brooks, Sowerby v. See Sowerby v. Brooks. 
 
 Brooks v. Taylor (1876), 26 U. C. C. P. 443 102 
 
 Brougham ex parte, in re Darby. See In re Darby, ex parte 
 
 Brougham. 
 Brougham, Levene v. See Levene v. Brougham. 
 
 Brown in re Bayley and Dixon (1881), 18 Ch. D. 649 478, 483 
 
 Brown in re, ex parte Hughes (1871), L. R. 12 Eq. 137 165 
 
 Brown in re L. N. W. Ry. Co. (1863). 4 B. & S. 326 66 
 
 Brown in re, ex parte Plitt (1889), 60 L. T. 397; 37 W R. 463; 
 
 6 Mor. 81 284 
 
 Brown in re, ex parte Towne (1834), 4 Dea. & C 519 258 
 
 Brown ex parte, M. D. & M. 718 471 
 
TABLE Of CASKS. x li 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Brown ex parte, in re Appleby (1876). See In re Appleby, ex 
 
 parte Brown. 
 Brown ex parte, in re Dodds. See In re Dodds, ex parte Brown. 
 Brown ex parte, in re Hastings. See In re Hastings ex parte 
 
 Brown. 
 Brown ex parte, in re Jeavons. See Jeavons in re, ex parte 
 
 Brown. 
 Brown ex parte, in re Salisbury. See In re Salisbury, ex parte 
 
 Brown. 
 Brown ex parte, in re Stephenson. See In re Stephenson, ex 
 
 parte Brown. 
 Brown ex parte, in re Suffield & Watts. See Suffield & Watts 
 
 in re, ex parte Brown. 
 Brown ex parte, in re Vansittart. See In re Vansittart, ex parte 
 
 Brown. 
 Brown ex parte, in re Yates. See Yates in re, ex parte Brown. 
 Brown, Ashley v. See Ashley v. Brown. 
 Brown v. Bateman (1867), L. R. 2 C. P. 272; 36 L. J. C. P. 134; 
 
 15 W. R. 350 83, 101 
 
 Brown, Brittain v. See Brittain v. Brown. 
 
 Brown v. Caldwell (1918), 2 W. W. R. 229 595 
 
 Brown, Charrington v. See Charrington v. Brown. 
 
 Brown v. Douglas (1868), 13 L. G'. J. 29 174 
 
 Brown, Gardner v. See Gardner v. Brown. 
 Brown, Griffith v. See Griffith v. Brown. 
 
 Brown v. Hickinbotham (1881), 50 L. J. Q. B. 426 274 
 
 Brown, Keays v. See Keays v. Brown. 
 
 Brown, Lewis v. See Lewis v. Brown. 
 
 Brown, Potter v. See Potter v. Brown. 
 
 Brown, Rose v. See Rose v. Browm 
 
 Brown, Stevenson v. See Stevenson v. Brown. 
 
 Brown, Trustee of Burns-Burns v. See Burns-Burns (Trustee 
 
 of) v. Brown. 
 
 Brown v. Wright (1874), 35 U. C. Q. B. 378 172 
 
 Browne v. Knight. See Knight v. Browne. 
 
 Browne v. Savage (1859), 4 Drew. 635 311 
 
 Browne & Wingrove in re, ex parte Ador (1891), 2 Q. B. 574; 
 
 61 L. J. Q. B. 15; 65 L. T. 485; 40 W. R. 71; 8 Mor. 264. 
 
 455, 456, 457 
 Browning, Ludlow v. See Ludlow v. Browning. 
 
 Brown's Trusts (1867-8), L. R. 5 Bq. 88 309 
 
 Brownscombe v. Pair (1888), 58 L. T. 85 162 
 
 Brumell & Richardson, Martin v. See Martin v. Brumell & 
 
 Richardson. 
 Brummell, Marten v. See Marten v. Brummell. 
 Bruno.Selva & Co. in re, ex parte Francis & Co. (1887), 57 L T. 
 
 577 ; 4 Mor. 146 '. . . 302 
 
 Brunsden v. Humphrey (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 141; 53 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 476; 32 W. R. 944; 51 L. T. 529 298 
 
 Brunton, Eng. & Scottish Mercantile Inves. Co. v. See Eng. & 
 
 Scottish Mercantile Investment Co. v. Brunton. 
 Bryans, Ferguson v. See Ferguson v. Bryans. 
 Bryant in re (1895), 1 Q. B. 420; 64 L. J. Q. B. 417; 72 L. T. 133; 
 
 2 Man. 37 529 
 
 Bryant in re, ex parte Gordon (1889), 6 Mor. 262 263 
 
 Bryant in re. ex parte Kilner (1837), 3 M. & A. 722 . . .113, 115 
 
 Bryant v. Withers, 2 M. & S. 123 429 
 
 Bubb v. Yelverton (1870), L. R. 9 Eq. 471; 39 L J. Ch. 428; 
 
 22 L. T. 258; 18 W. R. 512 .' 417 
 
 Buchanan v. Findlay (1829), 9 B. & C. 738 80, 87 
 
 Buchanan, Smith v. See Smith v. Buchanan. 
 
 Buchanan v. Smith (1870), 17 Gr. 208; 18 Gr. 41 263, 459, 534 
 
 Buckett, Rose v. See Rose v. Buckett. 
 
 Buckland in re (1873), L. R. 15 Eq. 221; 42 L. J. Bank. 32; 
 
 21 W. R. 291 149, 160 
 
 Buckley in re and ex parte (1881), 16 Ch. D. 513; 29 W. R. 920- 
 
 44 L. T. 39 ' 495 
 
x |ii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Budgett in re, Cooper v. Adams (1894), 2 Ch. 557; 8 R. 424; 63 
 
 L. J. Ch. 847; 71 L. T. 72; 42 W. R. 551; 1 Man. 230 391, 468 
 
 Bugbee, Pelch v. See Felch v. Bugbee. 
 
 Buenos Ayres & Pac. Ry. Co. ex parte, in re Clark. See In re 
 
 Clark, ex parte Buenos Ayres & Pac. Ry. Co. 
 Bull ex parte, in re Ditchman. See In re Ditchman, ex parte Bull. 
 Bullard, King & Co., Pearce v. See Pearce v. Bullard, King & Co. 
 Bullen in re, ex parte Arnaud (1888), 36 W. R. 836; 5 Mor. 243. 
 
 521, 524 
 
 Bullivant in re (1880) , 5 O. A. R. 638 528 
 
 Bulmer v. Hunter (1869), L. R. 8 Eq. 46; 38 L. J. Ch. 543; 20 
 
 L. T. 942 108, 331 
 
 Bulteel. Pearce v. See Pearce v. Bulteel. 
 
 Bulteel's Settlement in re, Bulteel v. Manley (1917), 1 Ch. 251; 
 
 86 L. J. Ch. 294; (1917), H. B. R. 105 334 
 
 Bumpstead ex parte, in ' re Mclnnes. See In re Mclnnes, ex 
 
 parte Bumpstead. 
 Bulwer in re, ex parte Sheppard (1833), M. & B. 415; 3 Dea & C. 
 
 195 472 
 
 Bumpus in re/ ex parte White (1908), 2 K. B. 330; 77 L. J. K. B. 
 
 563; 98 L. T. 680; 52 Sol. J. 395; 15 Man. 103 61 
 
 Bunnell, Pratt v. See Pratt v. Bunnell. 
 
 Sunning v. Canada Furniture Co. See Canada Furniture Co. 
 
 v. Bunning. 
 
 Bunny in re and ex parte (1857) , 1 DeG. & J. 309 115 
 
 Bunyard in re, ex parte Newton (1880), 16 Ch. D. 330; 50 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 484; 29 W. R. 407; 44 L. T. 232 427 
 
 Burdekin, Bowker v. See Bowker v. Burdekin. 
 
 Burden in re, ex parte Wood (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 24; 57 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 570; 59 L.' T. 149; 36 W. R. 896; 5 Mor. 166 625 
 
 Burge in re, ex parte Skyrme (1912), 1 K. B. 393; 81 L. J. K. B. 
 
 721; 106 L. T. 47; 20 Man. 11 88 
 
 Burgess, Knight v. See Knight v. Burgess. 
 
 Burgess, Taffenden v. See Taffenden v. Burgess. 
 
 Burghardt in re, ex parte Trevor (1875), 1 Ch. D. 297; 45 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 27; 33 L. T. 765; 24 W. R. 301 103 
 
 Burgoyne in re and ex parte (1891) , 8 Mor. 139 497 
 
 Burke v. McWhirter (1874), 35 U. C. Q. B. 1 163, 554, 564 
 
 Burland v. Moffat (1884), 11 S. C. R. 76 45 
 
 Burman & Greenwood ex parte, in re Jubb. See In re Jubb, 
 
 ex parte Burman & Greenwood. 
 Burn v. Carvalho (1833), 4 M. & C. 690; 4 B. & Ad. 382; IN 
 
 & M. 700; 3 J. M. 1141; affd. 1 A. & E. 883; 4 N. & M. 889.. 283 
 Burn, Munn v. See Crossley in re, Munn v. Burn. 
 Burnand in re, ex parte Baker, Sutton & Co. (1904), 2 K. B 68; 
 
 73 L. J. K. B. 413; 91 L. T. 46; 52 W. R. 437; 11 Man.' 113. 
 
 247, 514, 669 
 Burnett in re Blake. See In re Blake, ex parte Burnett 
 Burnett in re, ex parte O. R. (1894), 63 L. J. Q. B. 423; 42 W. R. 
 
 368; 70 L. T. 385; 1 Mans. 89 545 
 
 Burnett, Canadian Port Huron Co. v. See Can. Port Huron Co. 
 
 v. Burnett. 
 Burns-Burns Trustee of v. Brown (1895), 1 Q. B. 324; 64 L. J 
 
 Q. B. 248; 71 L. T. 825; 43 W. R. 195; 2 Mans 23 118, 190 
 
 Burns & Lewis v. Wilson (1897), 28 S. C R. 207 364 
 
 Burns v. Siemens Bros. Dynamo Works (1919), 1 Ch. 225 306 
 
 Burnside, South Staffordshire Ry. Co. v. See South Stafford- 
 shire Ry. Co. v. Burnside. 
 Burr in re, ex parte Board of Trade (1892), 2 Q. B. 467; 61 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 591; 66 L. T. 553; 9 Mor. 133 219, 220, 221, 222 
 
 Burr in re, ex parte Clarke (1892), W N. 138; 67 L. T. 465; 
 
 40 W. R. 608; 41 W. R. 116 78, 408, 445 
 
 Burr in re, ex parte Pannell (1901), 84 L. T. 327 273 
 
 Burrell ex parte, in re Robinson. See In re Robinson, ex parte 
 
 Burrell. 
 Burroughs-Fowler in re (1916), 1 Ch. 251; 85 L. J Ch. 550; 
 
 2 H. B. R. 108 '. . .43, 287, 331 
 
TABLE OF CASKS. x |iii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Burson, Orillia Export Lumber Co. v. See Orillia Export Lum- 
 ber Co. v. Burson. 
 Burton ex parte, in re Tunstall. See In re Tunstall, ex parte 
 
 Burton. 
 
 Burrowes v. De Blaquiere (1874), 34 U. C. Q. B. 498 417 
 
 Bury Kellaway v. See Kellaway v. Bury. 
 
 Butcher v. Stead (1875), L. R. 7 H. L. 839; 44 L. J. Bank. 126; 
 
 33 L. T. 541; 24 W. R. 462 332, 344, 364 
 
 Butler v. Wearing (1885), 17 Q. B. D. 182; 3 Mor. 5 82. 188 
 
 Butt, White v. See White v. Butt. 
 
 Butterfield in re (1890), 7 Mor. 59, 293 507, 508 
 
 Butterfield ex parte (1847), De Gex. 570 471 
 
 Butters ex parte, in re Harrison. See Harrison in re, ex parte 
 
 Butters. 
 Butterworth in re, ex parte. Russell (1882), 19 Ch. D. 588; 51 
 
 L. J. Ch. 521; 46 L. T. 113; 30 W. R. 584. . .47, 108, 263, 330, 333 
 Button in re, ex parte Voss (1905), 1 K. B. 602; 74 L. J. K. B. 
 
 403; 92 L. T. 250; 53 W. R. 437; 12 Mans. Ill 128, 445 
 
 Buxton ex parte,- in re Muller. See Muller in re, ex parte 
 
 Buxton. 
 Buxton, Lomax v. See Lomax v. Buxton. 
 
 Byrne in re. ex parte Henry (1892), 67 L. T. 230; 9 Mor. 213 70 
 
 Caffyn; Hancock v. See Hancock v. Caffyn. 
 
 Caine's Mortgage Trusts in re (1918-19), B. & C. R. 279 283 
 
 Cairney v. Back (1906), 2 K. B. 746; 75 L. J. K. B. 1014; 22 
 
 T. L. R. 776; 96 L. T. Ill; 14 Mans. 58 464 
 
 Calcott and Elvin's Contract in re (1898), 2 Ch. 460; 67 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 553; 78 L. T. 826; 46 W. R. 673; 5 Mans. 208 154, 158 
 
 171, 193, 196, 199, 242 
 
 Caldecott ex parte (1830), Mont. 55 513 
 
 Caldecott ex parte, in re Mapleback. ' See In re Mapleback, ex 
 
 parte Caldecott. 
 Caldecott, Cook v. See Cook v. Caldecott. 
 
 Calder in re (1848), (1891), 2 W. L. T. 1 12 
 
 Calder, Powell v. See Powell v. Calder. 
 
 Calderwood in re, ex parte Board of Trade (1895), 7 Mor. 251.. 570 
 
 Caldicott ex parte, in re Hart. See In re Hart, ex parte Caldi- 
 
 cott. 
 Caldwell, Brown v. See Brown v. Caldwell. 
 Calisher's Case (1868), L. R. 5 Eq. 214; 37 L. J. Ch. 208; 16 W. 
 
 R. 303 323 
 
 Callender v. Colonial Secretary of Lagos (1891), A. C. 460; 60 
 
 L. J. P. C. 33; 65 L. T. 297 71, 74, 158, 197, 199, 586 
 
 Calumet Metals, Ltd. in re v. Eldridge (1914), 15 D. L. R. 461. . 651 
 Calvert in re and ex parte (1899), 2 Q. B. 145; 68 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 761; 80 L. T. 504; 47 W. R. 523; 6 Mans. 256 488, 491 
 
 Calvert in re and ex parte (No. 2) (1899), 6 Man. 216; 80 L. T. 
 
 499 638 
 
 Calvert ex parte, in re Messenger. See In re Messenger, ex 
 
 parte Calvert. 
 
 Calvin v. Tranchemontague (1870), 14 L. C. J. 210 354 
 
 Cama ex parte, in re London and Bombay Bank. See In re 
 
 London and Bombay Baiik, ex parte Cama. 
 Cambrian Mining Co. in re (1881), 20 Ch. D. 376; 51 L. J. Ch. 
 
 221; 30 W. R. 285 508 
 
 Cameron in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 450 (Panneton, J.) 398 
 
 Cameron v. Cusack (1890), 18 O. R. 520; 17 O. A. R. 489 363 
 
 Cameron v. Eager (1873), 6 P. R. 117 299 
 
 Cameron v. Holland (1869), 29 U. C. Q. B. 506 534 
 
 Cameron v. Kerr (1876). 23 Gr. 374 408, 564 
 
 Cameron v. Perrin (1887), 14 O. A. R. 565 365, 36C 
 
 Cameron v. Stevenson (1862). 12 U. C. C. P. 389 174, 608 
 
 Campbell ex parte and re (1887) , 4 Mor. 198 . . 115 
 
 Campbell in re ex parte Wolverhampton & Staffordshire Banking 
 
 Co. (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 32; 33 W. R. 642; 1 Mor. 261 147 
 
 Campbell v. Barrie (1871), 31 U. C. Q. B. 279 341, 346 
 
x iiv TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Campbell ex parte, in re Cathcart. See Cathcart in re ex parte 
 
 Campbell. 
 Campbell ex parte, in re Wallace. See In re Wallace, ex parte 
 
 Campbell. 
 Campbell, La Banque d'Echange du Canada v. See Banque 
 
 d'Echange du Canada v. Campbell. 
 
 Campbell v. Hall (1774) , 1 Cbwper 204 6 
 
 Campbell v. Hally (1895), 22 0. A. R. 217 378, 379 
 
 Campbell, Hingston v. See Hingston v. Campbell. 
 Campbell, McGee v. See McGee v. Campbell. 
 Campbell, McGregor v. See McGregor v. Campbell. 
 Campbell v. Patterson. See Meader v. McKinnon. 
 
 Campbell v. Roche (1891) , 18 O. A. R. 646 354, 363 
 
 Campion v. Cotton (1810), 17 Ves. Jr. 263 108 
 
 Can. v. Read (1749), 3 Atk. 695 241 
 
 Canada Cabinet Co. in re (1907), 90 W. R. 818 363 
 
 Canada Cork Co., Phillips v. See Phillips v. Can. Cork Co. 
 Canada Furniture Co. v. Bunning (1918), 1 W. W. R. 31 
 
 (Mans.) ; 39 D. L. R. 313 444 
 
 Canada Iron Brewster v. See Brewster v. Canada Iron. 
 
 Canada Landed Credit Co. v. McAllister (1874), 21 Gr. 593 189 
 
 Canada Shipping Co., ex parte in re Central Bank. See Central 
 
 Bank in re, ex parte Canada Shipping Co. 
 Canada Woollen Mills Limited in re (1905), 9 O. L. R. 367; 8 O. 
 
 L. R. 581; 5 O. W. R. 220, 455; 4 0. W. R. 265; 24 C. L. T. 
 
 396 256, 412 
 
 Canadian in re (No. 2) (1914), 16 D. L. R. 17 605 
 
 Canadian Bank of Commerce v. Adamson (1883), 1 M. L. R. 3 12 
 Canadian Bank of Commerce v Davidson (1910), 15 W. L. R. 
 
 530; 3 S. L. R. 403 94 
 
 Canadian Bank of Commerce, Exchange Bank v. See Exchange 
 
 Bank v. Can. Bank of Commerce. 
 Canadian Bank of Commerce, Moody v. See Moody, v. Canadian 
 
 Bank of Commerce. 
 
 Canadian Camera Co. in re (1901), 2 O. L. R. 677 46 
 
 Canadian Lumbering and Timbering Co. v. Grant (1887), 12 
 
 P. R. 301 74 
 
 Canadian Mineral Rubber Co. in re (1916), 10 O. W. N. 456; 11 
 
 O. W. N. 135 463 
 
 Canadian Mineral Rubber Co., Lavell v. See Lavell v. Can. 
 
 Mineral Rubber Co. 
 
 Canadian Pacific Colonisation Co., Ltd (1891), W. N. 122 407 
 
 Canadian Pacific Railway Co., Henderson v. See Henderson v. 
 
 Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. 
 Canadian Port Huron Co.< v. Burnett (1907), 5 W. L. R. 270; 
 
 17 Man. L. R. 55 177 
 
 Canadian Puget Sound Lumber Co., Michigan Trust v. See 
 
 Michigan Trust v. Canadian Puget Sound Lumber Co. 
 Canadian Shipbuilding Co., in re (1912), 26 O. L. R. 564; 3 O. 
 
 W. N. 1476; 4 O. W. N. 157 46 
 
 Cannan. Smith v. See Smith v. Cannan. 
 
 Cannock Colliery Co.. in re ex parte Harrison, 28 Ch. D. 363; 
 
 (1885), 54 L. J. Ch. 554; 53 L. T. 189 307 
 
 Cannon, Bates v. See Bates v. Cannon. 
 Cannon, Jackson v. See Jackson v. Cannon. 
 
 Capital and Counties Bank v. Gordon (1903), A. C. 240 285 
 
 Capital and Counties Bank, McCarthy v. See McCarthy v. Capi- 
 tal and Counties Bank. 
 Capital Fire Insurance Association (1883). 24 Ch. D. 408... 669, 670 
 Capital Trust v. Yellowhead Pass Coal and Coke Co. and Revil- 
 
 lon Wholesale (1916), 3" A. L. R. 463; 27 D. L. R. 25; 33 W. 
 
 L. R. 873; 9 W. W. R. 1275 162, 439 
 
 Capot ex parte (1739), 1 Atk 219 229 
 
 Capper ex parte, in re Newman. See In re Newman, ex parte 
 
 Capper. 
 Carey, Collins v. See Collins v. Carey. 
 
TABLE OF CASES. x lv 
 
 PAGK 
 
 Carlhian ex parte, in re Raatz. See Raatz in re, ex parte 
 
 Carlhian. 
 Carmichael, Wilkins v. See Wilkins v. C'armichael. 
 Carnac in re, ex parte Simmonds (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 308; 55 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 74; 34 W. R. 421; 54 L. T. 439 143, 248, 291 
 
 Came in re, ex parte Jackson (1889), 6 Mor. 55 522 
 
 Carnforth Iron Co. in re, ex parte Phoenix Bessemer Steel Co. 
 
 (1876), 4 Ch. D. 108; 14 L. J. Ch. 115; 25 W. R. 187; 35 
 
 L. T. 776 303 
 
 Carpenter in, re, ex parte Besley & Wilson. 7 Mor. 270 391 
 
 Carr ex parte, in re Beauchamp Bros. (1884). See In re Beau- 
 champ Bros., ex parte Carr. 
 Carr ex parte, in re Hoffman. See In re Hoffman, ex parte Carr. 
 
 Carr v. Acraman, 25 L. J. Ex. 90 92 
 
 Carr v. Allatt (1858), 27 L. J. Ex. 385 83 
 
 Carr v. Corfield (1890), 20 O. R. 218 345, 348 
 
 Carriage Co-operative Supply Assoc. (1883), 23 Ch. D. 154 479 
 
 Carrier v. Allin (1877), 2 O. A. R. 15 132 
 
 Carritt in re Imperial Paper Mills, Diehl v. See Imperial 
 
 Paper Mills, in re Diehl v. Carritt. 
 Carroll, Rogers v See Rogers v. Carroll. 
 Carruthers, Gibson v. See Gibson v. Carruthers. 
 
 Carruthers v. Peake (1911) . 55 S. J. 291 331 
 
 Carruthers. Sparrow v. See Sparrow v. Carruthers. 
 
 Carson & Co. v. Montreal Trust Co. (1915). 49 N. S. R. 50 555 
 
 Carte, Emden v. See Emden v. Carte. 
 
 Carter in re and ex parte (1850), 1 Fonb. 83 527 
 
 Carter in re, ex parte Jacobs (1874), L. R. 17 Eq. 575; 43 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 46; 22 W. R. 439; 30 L. T. 133 409 
 
 Carter, ex parte, 2 G. & J. 233 471 
 
 Carter ex parte, in re Ware. See In re Ware, ex parte Carter. 
 Carter v. Carter, in re Carter (1885), 55 L. J. Ch. 230; 34 W. 
 
 R. 57 87, 430 
 
 Carter and Kenderdine's Contract in re (1897), 1 Ch. 776; 
 
 66 L. J. Ch. 408; 76 L. T. 476; 45 W. R. 484: 4 Man. 34. 
 
 173, 201, 332. 371 
 Carter, Long v. See Long v. Carter. 
 Carter, Nunes v. See Nunes v. Carter. 
 
 Carter v. Stone (1891), 20 O. R. 340 189 
 
 Carter v. Woodruff in re Wilson. See In re Wilson. Carter v. 
 
 Woodruff. 
 
 Cartier v. Genser (1902), 22 Occ. N. 416 412 
 
 Cartland, Frith v. See Frith v. Cartland. 
 
 Cartwright v. Glover, 2 Gift. 620 305 
 
 Carvalho, Burn v. See Burn v. Carvalho. 
 
 Casner v. Haight (1884), 6 O. R. 451 293 
 
 Castel ex parte (1826), 2 Gl. & J. 124 471 
 
 Castelli. Boddington v. See Boddington v. Castelli. 
 
 Castle Mail Packets ex parte, in re Payne. See In re Payne, ex 
 
 parte Castle Mail Packets. 
 Cass ex parte, in re Dunkley. See Dunkley in re, ex parte 
 
 Cass. 
 Castrique, Armani v. See Armani v. Castrique. 
 Casserley, Atkinson v. See Atkinson v. Casserley. 
 
 Casserley v. Hughes (19051. 5 O. W. R. 599; 6 O W. R. 70 64 
 
 Cathcart in re, ex parte Campbell (1870), L. R. 5 Ch. 703; 18 
 
 W. R. 1056; 23 L. T. 289 509 
 
 Caughey in re ex parte Ford (1875), 1 Ch. D. 521; 45 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 96; 34 L. T. 634; 24 W. R. 590 273 
 
 Cavendish ex parte, in re Lake. See In re Lake, ex parte Cavendish. 
 Cazenore. Goldsmid v. See Goldsmid v. Cazenore. 
 
 General Bank of Canada in re (1897), 17 P. R. 370 592, 594 
 
 Central Bank of Canada, in re, Yorks's Case (1888), 15 O. R. 625. 325 
 Central Bank in re, ex parte Can. Shipping Co. (1888), 30 C. L. 
 
 T. 271 565 
 
 Central Bank of London ex parte, in re Fraser. See In re 
 
 Fraser ex parte Central Bank of London. 
 
xIm table of cases. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Central Bank in re, Central Bank, Baxter v. See Central Bank 
 
 in re, Baxter v. Central Bank. 
 Central Bank in re, Baxter v. Central Bank (1891), 20 O. R. 
 
 214 163, 560 
 
 Central Bank of London, Schroeder v. See Schroeder v. Central 
 
 Bank of London. 
 
 Century Mfg. Co. in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 469 (Lamarre, R.) 614 
 
 Chafffty in re (1870), 30 U. C. Q. B. 64 438, 448, 467 
 
 Chak, Sam, Attorney-General of Canada v. See Attorney-Gen- 
 eral of Canada v. Sam Chak. f 
 Chalmer, Davidson v. See Davidson v. Chalmer. 
 Chalmers Ltd. in re, Fraser v. See In re Fraser v. Chalmers. 
 Chalmers in re, McLaren and. See In re McLaren and Chal- 
 mers. 
 Chalmers ex parte, in re Edwards. See In re Edwards, ex 
 
 parte Chalmers. 
 
 Chamber ex parte (1828), M. & Mac. 130 550 
 
 Chamberlain v. Stoneham (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 113; 59 L. J. Q. 
 
 B. 95; 38 W. R. 107; 61 L. T. 560 513 
 
 Chamberlayne v. Collins (1894), 70 L. T. 217 63 
 
 Chambers & Co. v. Gunstone (1897), 76 L. T. 780 434 
 
 Chambers, Midland Banking Co. v. See Midland Banking Co. 
 
 v. Chambers. 
 
 Chandler ex parte (1803), 9 Ves. 35 468 
 
 Chaplin ex parte, in re Sinclair. See In re Sinclair, ex parte 
 
 Chaplin. 
 Chaplin, Ontario Bank v. See Ontario Bank v. Chaplin. 
 
 Chaplin v. Young (1864), 33 Bear. 414 413 
 
 Chapman in re (1872), L. R. 15 Eq. 75; 42 L. J. Bank. 38; 
 
 27 L. T. 628; 21 "W. R. 104 164 
 
 Chapman in re, ex parte Edwards (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 747; 51 
 
 L. T. 881; 33 W. R. 268; 1 Mor. 238 128, 147 
 
 Chapman in re, ex parte Johnson (1884), 26 Ch. D. 338; 53 
 
 L. J. Ch. 762; 50 L. T. 214 105 
 
 Chapman ex parte, Pilling in re. See Pilling in re, ex parte 
 
 Chapman. 
 
 Chapman's Case, L. R. 1 Eq. 346 .' 463 
 
 Charlebois, Tate v. See Tate v. Charlebois. 
 
 Charles in re and ex parte (1872), L. R. 13 Eq. 638; 41 L. J. 
 
 Bank. ,43 66 
 
 Charles in re, ex parte Macredie (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 535; 42 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 90; 28 L. T. 827; 21 "W. R. 535 426 
 
 Charles ex parte (1811). 16 Ves. 256; 14 East. 197 130 
 
 Charlton, Shackell v. See Shackell v. Charlton. 
 
 Charlwood in re, ex parte Masters (1894), 1 Q. B. 643; 63 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 344 ; 1 Mans. 42 146 
 
 Charman v. Charman (1808), 14 Ves. 580, 585 393 
 
 Charrington v. Brown (1826), 11 Moore 341 115 
 
 Chartered Trusts and Executor Co., Bell v. See Bell v. Char- 
 tered Trusts and Executor Co. 
 Charteris ex parte, in re Studer. See Studer in re, ex parte 
 
 Charteris. 
 
 Chase in re, ex parte Cooper (1886), 3 Mor. 228 519 
 
 Chatterton in re, ex parte Hemming (1879), 13 Ch. D. 163; 49 
 
 L. J. Bank, 17; 28 W. R. 218; 41 L. T. 513 535, 536 
 
 Chatterton ex parte, in re Van Laun. See In re Van Laun, ex 
 
 parte Chatterton. 
 Chatterton, Jarmain v. See Jarmain v. Chatterton. 
 Cheeseborough in re, ex parte Blackburn (1871), L. R. 12 Eq. 
 
 358; 40 L. J. Bank. 79; 25 L. T. 76; 19 W. R. 973 346, 350 
 
 Cheeseman, Good v. See Good v. Cheeseman. 
 
 Chenoweth v. Hay (1813), 1 M. & S. 676; 2 Rose 137 114 
 
 Cherry, Reg v. See Reg v. Cherry. 
 
 Chetwynd, Bower v., in re Benzon. See In re Benzon, ex parte 
 
 Chetwynd. 
 Chidley in re, ex parte Lennard (1*75), 1 Ch. D. 177; 45 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 49; 33 L. T. 553; 24 W. R. 182 544 
 
TABLE OF C-l.S'ft.S'. x | V ii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Chitty, White v. See White v. Chitty. 
 
 Christie in re and ex parte (1900), 1 Q. B. 5; 69 L. J. Q. B. 31; 
 
 48 W. R. 94; 81 L. T. 528; 7 Man. 1 398 
 
 Christie in re, Galbraith and. See Galbraith in re, and Christie. 
 
 Christie ex parte (1855), 4 E. & B. 714 536 
 
 Christopherson, Seinbane et al v. See Seinbane et al v. 
 
 Christopherson. 
 
 Church v. Sage (1892), 67 L. T. 800; 41 W. R. 175 41, 288 
 
 Churchill, Guy v. See Guy v. Churchill. 
 
 Cie, du Moulin, La, Dupont v. See Dupont v. La Cie du Moulin. 
 
 City of Glasgow in re (1880) , 14 Ch, D. 628 586 
 
 City Garage and Machine Co., Ltd. in re (1921), 1 C. B. H. 412 
 
 (Milligan, M.T.) 199 
 
 Clare, McMaster v. See McMaster v. Clare. 
 
 Clark in re and ex parte (1832), 1 D. & C. 544 581 
 
 Clark in re and ex parte (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 426; 53 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 1063; 51 L. T. 584; 32 W. R. 775; 1 Mor. 143 214, 215, 220 
 
 Clark in re, ex parte Beardmore (1894), 2 Q. B. 393; 63 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 806; 70 L. T. 751; 1 Man. 207 40, 273, 280, 292, 314, 375 
 
 Clark in re, ex parte Buenos Ayres and Pac. Ry. Co. (1901), 1. 
 
 K. B. 655; 70 L. J. K. B. 259; 84 L. T. 208; 49 W. R. 528; 
 
 8 Mans. 156 445 
 
 Clark in re, ex parte Kearley (1889), 60 L. T. 335; 6 Mor. 42. 
 
 273, 373, 374, 375 
 Clark in re, ex parte Newland (1876), 4 Ch. D. 515; 35 L. T.- 
 
 916 ; 25 W. R. 275 ' 268 
 
 Clark in re, ex parte Pope & Owles (1914), 3 K. B. 1095; 84 L. 
 
 J. K. B. 89; 59 Sol. J. 44; 2 H. B. R. 1 597 
 
 Clark in re, ex parte Schulze (1898), 2 Q. B. 330; 67 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 759; 78 L. T. 735; 46 W. R. 678; 5 Mans. 201 451, 453 
 
 Clark, Robins v. See Robins v. Clark. 
 
 Clarke ex Darte (1799). 4 Ves. 677 468 
 
 Clarke v. Bradlaugh (1881). 8 Q. B. D. 68; 51 L. J. Q. B. 1; 
 
 46 L. T. 49; 30 W. R. 53 61 
 
 Clarke ex parte, in re Burr. See In re Burr, ex parte Clarke. 
 
 Clarke Coombe v. Clark Burr (1887) . 36 Ch. D. 348 82 
 
 Clarke, Shoolbred v. See Shoolbred v. Clarke. 
 Clarke, Shoolbred v., in re Union Fire Insurance Co. See Shool- 
 bred v. Clarke, in re Union Fire Insurance Co. 
 
 Clarkson v. McMaster (1885-6), 25 S. C. R. 96 40, 48, 349 
 
 Clarkson v. Ryan, 16 A. R. 311; (1890), 17 S. C. R. 251; 4 Cart. 
 
 439 189 
 
 Clarkson, Shantz v. See Shantz v. Clarkson. 
 
 Clarkson v. Sterling (1888), 15 O. A. R. 234 40, 348, 349, 632 
 
 Clarkson, Thompson v. See Thompson v. Clarkson. 
 
 Clarkson v. White (1884), 4 O. R. 633 313 
 
 Clarkson, Wyld v. See Wyld v. Clarkson. 
 
 Claxton ex parte, in re Bishop. See Bishop in re, ex parte 
 
 Claxton. 
 
 Clay in re, ex parte Trustee, 3 Man. 31 346, 350 
 
 Clayton's Case (1816), 1 Mer. 572 285 
 
 Clayton & Barclay's Contract in re (1895), 2 Ch. 212; 64 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 615; 72 L. T. 764; 43 W. R. 549; 59 J. P. 489; 2 Man. 
 
 345 305, 374 
 
 Clayton, Elliott v. See Elliott v. Clayton. 
 
 Clement in re, ex parte Goas (1886), 3 Mor. 153 97, 173 
 
 Clements v. McKibbon (1857), 2 H. & N. 62 116 
 
 Clenton, Ambrose v. See Ambrose v. -Clenton. 
 
 Cliff e in re, ex parte Eatough Co. (1880), 42 L. T. 95; 28 W. R. 
 
 433 ... . .552 565 
 
 Clifton in re, ex paVfe (1890), 7 Mor. 59 ................. !507! 571 
 
 Climpson v. Coles (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 465; 58 L. J. Q. B. 346; 
 
 61 L. T. 116; 38 W. R. 110 41, 288 
 
 Cline, Brock v. See Brock v. Cline. 
 
 Cline & Morlock, in re, Ltd., ex parte Sarvis & Canning. See 
 
 in re Morlock & Cline, Ltd., ex parte Sarvis & Canning. 
 
xlviii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Clinton Thresher Co. (1910), 1 0. W. N. 445; 15 0. W. R. 319. 
 
 39, 84, 157, 479 
 Close ex parte, in re Bennett. See Bennett in re, ex parte Close. 
 Clough ex parte, in re Reis. See In re Reis, ex parte Clough. 
 
 Clunn in re* ex parte Morrison (1864), 10 Jut. N. S. 787 521 
 
 Clydesdale Bank. Thomson v. See Thomson v. Clydesdale Bank. 
 Coaks, Boswell v. See Boswell v. Coaks. 
 
 Coates in re, ex parte Scott (1892), 9 Mor. 87 428 
 
 Coates ex parte, in re Skelton. See In re Skelton, ex parte 
 
 Coates. 
 Coates ex parte, in re Wooding. See In re Wooding, ex parte 
 
 Coates v. Joslin (1866), 12 Gr. 524 350 
 
 Coats v. Kelly (1886), 15 0. A. R. 81 45 
 
 Cobb ex parte, in re Sedley. See In re Sedley, ex parte Cobb. 
 Cobham v. Dalton (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 455; 44 L. J. Ch. 702; 
 
 44 L. J. Bank. 22; 31 L. T. 397; 23 W. R. 865 155, 535 
 
 Cochrane ex parte, in re Faulconer. See Paulconer in re, ex 
 
 parte Cochrane. 
 Cochrane ex parte, in re Mead. See in re Mead, ex parte Coch- 
 rane. 
 Cochrane v. Moore (1-896), 25 Q. B. D. 57; 59 L. J. Q. B. 377; 
 
 63 L. T. 153; 38 W. R. 588; 54 J. P. 804 307 
 
 Cockayne in re and ex parte (1873), L. R. 16 Eq. 218; 42 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 71; 28 L. T. 678; 21 W. R. 479 495 
 
 Cockerell, Stuart v. (1869). See Stuart v. Cockerell. 
 
 Cockrell's Trust in re (1911), 2 Ch. 318 85 
 
 Cocks Biddulph & Co. ex parte, in re Hallett & Co. See In re 
 
 Hallett & Co., ex parte Cocks Biddulph & Co. 
 Cocks ex parte, in re Poole. See in re Poole, ex parte Cocks. 
 Cocks, Vacher v. See Vacher v. Cocks. 
 
 Code and Crain in re (1879), 3 O. A. R. 555 215 221 
 
 Codville v. Fraser (1902), 22 Occ. N. 123; 14 M. L. R. 12 345, 
 
 348, 349. 350 
 Codville Georgeson Co., The v. Smart (1907), 15 O. L. R. 357; 
 
 10 O W. R. 466 469 
 
 Coenen. Taylor v. See Taylor v. Coenen. 
 Coffin, Smith v. See Smith v. Coffin. 
 
 Coffin v. Coffin, 2 P. W. M. S. 290, 293 71 
 
 Cohen in re ex parte O. R. (1919), 2 K. B. 271; 88 L. J. K. B. 
 
 841; 3 H. B. R. 214 632 
 
 Cohen in re, ex parte O. R. (1918-19), B. & C. R. 214 314 
 
 Cohen ex parte in re (1879), L. R. 10 Ch. D. 183, 184; 27 W. R. 
 
 387; 39 L. T. 645 60 
 
 Cohen ex parte, in re Sparke. See Sparke in re, ex parte Cohen. 
 Cohen, Harrison v. See Harrison v. Cohen. 
 
 Cohen v. Hutchins (1869). 14 L. C. J. 235 139 
 
 Cohen, Hutchins v. See Hutchins v. Cohen. 
 
 Cohen & Cohen ex parte, in re Lavey. See Lavey in re, ex 
 
 parte Cohen & Cohen. 
 Cohen v. Mitchell (1890). 25 Q. B. D. 262; 59 L. J. Q. B. 409; 7 
 
 Mor. 207 312, 373, 374 
 
 Cohen, Thompson v. See Thompson v. Cohen. 
 
 Coker ex parte, in re Blake. See In re Blake ex parte Coker. 
 
 Cole v. British Columbia Fur Trading Co. (1918), 42 O. L. R. 
 
 587 263 
 
 Cole v. Kernot (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 534; L. R. 7 Q. B. 534n; 41 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 221 83 
 
 Coleman in re, 1 A. R. 471; (1875), 36 U. C. Q. B. 559 45 
 
 Coleman, Spence v. See Spence v. Coleman. 
 
 Colemere in re (1865), L. R. 1 Ch. 128; 35 L. J. Bank. 8; 13 
 
 L. T. R. 21 103 
 
 Coles in re, ex parte Ross 1 1827), 2 Gly. & J. 330 , ... 430 
 
 Coles v. Barrow (1813). 4 Taunt. 774 273 
 
 Coles, Climpson v. See Climpson v. Coles. 
 
 Collie in re, ex parte Findlay (1881), 17 Ch. D. 334; 50 L. J. Ch. 
 
 696; 45 L. T. 61 440, 467 
 
TABLE OF CASES. x ]j x 
 
 I'AGE 
 
 Collie in re, ex parte Manchester Bank (1876), 3 Ch. D. 481; 
 
 45 L. J. Bank. 149; 35 L. T. 23 469 
 
 Collier in re, ex parte Adamson (1878), 8 Ch. D. 807; 47 L. J. 
 
 B. 103; 38 L. T. 917; 26 W. R. 890.417, 418, 430, 444, 447, 448, 468 
 Collier ex parte, in re Crow. See In re Crow,, ex parte Collier. 
 Collier in re, ex parte Dan Rylands, Ltd. (1891), 64 L. T. 742; 
 
 8 Mor. 80 606, 608 
 
 Collier, Stanton v. See Stanton v. Collier. 
 
 Collinge ex parte, 4 Geg. J. & S. 533 471 
 
 Collins ex parte, in re Keen. See In re Keen, ex parte Collins. 
 Collins ex parte, in re Rogers. See In re Rogers, ex parte Col- 
 lins. 
 Collins ex oarte. in re Wells. See Wells in re, ex parte Collins. 
 Collins v. Barker (1893), 1 Ch. 578; 62 L. J. Ch. 316; 41 W. R. 
 
 4*2; 51 L. T. 811 470 
 
 Collins v. Carey (1839), 2 Bear. 128 413 
 
 Collins, Chamberlayne v. See Chamherlayne v. Collins. 
 Collins, Crawshay v. See Crawshay v. Collins. 
 
 Collver v. Shaw (1873). 19 Gr. 599 40, 81, 193 
 
 Collyer v. Isaacs (1881), 19 Ch. D. 342; 50 L. J. Ch. 707; 44 L. 
 
 T. 872 83 
 
 Colombine v. Penhall (1853), 1 Sm. & Gift. 228 331 
 
 Colonial Assurance Co.. Ltd. (1916), 29 D. L. R. 488 394 
 
 Colonial Bank v. Whinney (1886). 11 App. Cas. 426; 56 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 43; 55 L. T. 362; 34 W. R. 705; 3 Mor. 207 ... .30, 69, 70, 306 
 Colonial Investment Co. of Winnipeg, re (1913), 15 D. L. R. 
 
 634 27 
 
 Colonial Secretary of Lagos. Callender v. See Callender v. 
 
 Colonial Secretary of Lagos. 
 Colwell (E. C.) Candy Co. (1902), 35 N. B. R. 613; Contra 
 
 Fuches v. Hamilton Tribune 479 
 
 Combes' Trusts in re (1859), 1 Giff. 91 309 
 
 Combined Weighing and Advertising Machinery Co, in re 
 
 (1889), 43 Ch. D. 59; L. J. Ch. 26 127 
 
 Commercial Bank of Australia v. Official Assignee (1893), A. C. 
 
 181; 62 L. J. P. C. 61; 68 L. T. 540 426 
 
 Commercial Bank, Moulson v. See Moulson v. Commercial Bank. 
 Commercial Building and Investment Society, Munro v. See 
 
 Munro v. Com. Building and Investment Society. 
 Commercial Union Insurance Co., Smith v. See Smith v. Com- 
 mercial Union Insurance Co. 
 Commissioners of Taxation for N. S. W. v. Palmer (1907), A. C. 
 
 179; 76 L. J. P. C. 41; 96 L. T. 278; 14 Mans. 106 609, 610 
 
 Communante des Soeurs de Charite de la Providence, La, Kent 
 
 v. See Kent v. Communante des Soeurs de Charite, etc. 
 
 Communante des Soeurs v. Kent., O. R. 13 K. B. 483 320 
 
 Commissioner of Woods and Forests ex parte, in re Thomas. 
 
 See Thomas in re, ex parte Com. of Woods, etc. 
 Compagnie de Chemin de Fer de la Baie des Chaleurs La, 
 
 Nantel v. See Nantel v. La Compagnie de Chemin de Fer 
 
 de la Baie des Chaleurs. 
 Compagnie Hydraulic de St. Francois, La v. Continental Heat 
 
 and Light Co. (1909), A. C. 194, 198 24 
 
 Compagnie d'Imprimerie Electrique La.. Soucy v. See Soucy 
 
 v. La Compagnie d'Imprimerie Electrique. 
 Condon in re, ex parte James (1874), L. R. Ch. 9, 609; 42 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 107; 30 L T. 773; 22 W. R. 937 143, 248, 291 
 
 Coney, Holbrook v. See Holbrook v. Coney. 
 
 Conn v. Smith (1897), 28 O. R. 629 370 
 
 Connell ex parte (1838), 3 Dea 201; 3 M. & A. 581 469 
 
 Connolly v. Coon (1896), 23 O. A. R. 37 484 
 
 Connolly v. Woolrich, 11 L. C. J. 197 12 
 
 Consolidated Bank ex parte, in re Jones. See in re Jones, ex 
 
 parte Consolidated Bank. 
 Consolidated Diesel Engine Mfgrs., Ltd. in re (1915), 1 Ch. 
 
 192 255, 267, 611 
 
 B.C. — D 
 
1 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Consolidated Investments, Ltd., Simon's Case (1918), 2 W. W. 
 
 R. 581 323 
 
 Constable ex parte, in re Jones re Barker. See In re Jones, ex 
 
 parte Constable. 
 Constable ex parte, in re Lorrimar. See Lorrimar in re, ex 
 
 parte Constable. 
 Continental Heat and Light Co., La Compagnie Hydraulic de 
 
 St. Francois v. See Le Compagnie Hydraulic de St. 
 
 Francois v. Cont. Heat and Light Co. 
 Contract Corporation in re, Ebbro Vale Co.'s Case (1869). See 
 
 In re Ebbro Vale Co.'s Case v. Contract Corporation. 
 
 Converse v. Michie (1865), 16 U. C. C. P. 167 120, 187 
 
 Conway v. Nail (1845), 1 C. B. 643 362 
 
 Cook in re and ex parte (1889), 61 L. T. 335; 6 Mor. 224 521 
 
 Cook in re, ex parte Cripps (1899), 1 Q. B. 863; 68 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 597 ; 80 L. T. 495 ; 6 Mans. 185 390 
 
 Cook in re, ex parte Parsons (1909), 53 S. J. 359 283 
 
 Cook ex narte, Mont. 228 471 
 
 Cook ex Darte. 2 P. W. 500 96, 466 
 
 Cook, Alexandria Oil Co. v. See Alexandria Oil Co. v. Cook. 
 
 Cook v. Caldecott (1830), 1 Moo. & Mai. 522 102 
 
 Cook v. Dodds, 23 Occ. N. 325; (1903), 6 O. L. R. 608; 2 O. W. 
 
 R. 936 27 
 
 Cook, Jakeman v. See Jakeman v. Cook. 
 
 Cook, Robinson v. See Robinson v. Cook. 
 
 Cook, Walton v. See Walton v. Cook. 
 
 Cook & Richards ex parte, in re Gershaw & Levy. See In re 
 
 Gershaw & Levy, ex parte Cook & Richards. 
 Cooke, Bittlestone v. See Bittlestone v. Cook. 
 Cooke ex parte, in re Cotton. See In re Cotton, ex parte Cooke. 
 Cooke, O. R. v. See Official Receiver v. Cooke. 
 Cooke v. Preston's Trustee. See Official Receiver v. Cooke. 
 Cooke v. Vogeler Co. (1901); A. C. 102; (1901), 70 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 181; 84 L. T. 10; 17 T. L. R. 153; 8 Man. 113 60, 75, 95 
 
 Oooksev in re, ex parte Portal & Co. (1900), 83 L. T. 435 490 
 
 Coon, Connolly v. See Connolly v. Coon. 
 
 Cooper in re (1884), 27 Ch. D. 565; 32 W. R. 1115; 51 L. T. 113. 315 
 
 Cooper in re B'eyts and Craig. See In re Beyts & Craig. 
 
 Cooper in re, ex parte Hall (1882), 19 Ch. D. 680; 51 L. J. Ch. 
 
 556; 46 L. T. 549 508, 511 
 
 Cooper ex parte, in re Baum. See In re Baum ex parte Cooper. 
 Cooper ex parte, in re Chase. See In re Chase, ex parte Cooper. 
 Cooper ex parte, in re Green. See In re Green, ex parte Cooper. 
 Cooper ex parte, In re McLaren. See In re McLaren, ex parte 
 
 Cooper. 
 Cooper ex parte, in re Zucco. See in re Zucco, ex parte Cooper. 
 Cooper v. Adams, in re Budgett (1894). See In re Budgett. 
 Cooper v. Pritchard (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 351; 52 L. J. Q. B. 526; 
 
 31 W. R. 834; 48 L. T. 848 538 
 
 Cooper, Edwards v. See Edwards v. Cooper. 
 Cooper, Rust v. See Rust v. Cooper. 
 
 Cooper v. Stewart (1889), 58 L. J. P. C. 93 4, 5 
 
 Cooper, Titterton v. See Titterton v. Cooper. 
 
 Copeland v. Stephens, 1 B. & Aid. 593 305 
 
 Coperman v. Rose (1857), 7 E. & B. 679 536 
 
 Copeland v. Stein (1799), 8 T. R. 199 87 
 
 Copp, Stevens v. See Stevens v. Copp. 
 
 Corbit, Montgomery v. See Montgomery v. Corbit. 
 
 Corbudge ex parte, in re Beale. See In re Beale, ex parte Cor- 
 
 budge. 
 Corfleld, Carr v. See Carr v. Corfleld. 
 Corrie, Elmslie v. See Elmslie v. Corrie. 
 
 Corsellis in re, Lawton v. Elwes (1887), 37 Ch. D. 675 398, 413 
 
 Cosky, Pontbrianel Co. v. See Pontbrianel Co. v. Cosky. 
 Cosnett, Rex v. See Rex v. Cosnett. 
 
 Cossens ex parte (1826), Buck 31 5fl J 
 
 Cotter v. Mason (1870), 30 U. C. R. 181 284 
 
TABLE OF CASEX. li 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Cotton, Campion v. See Campion v. Cotton. 
 
 Cotton in re, ex parte Cooke (1913), 108 L. T. 310; 57 Sol. J. 
 
 343 284 
 
 Coughlin & Irwin's Claim. See Stratford Fuel, Ice and Const. 
 
 Co. 
 Couldery v. Bartrum (1880). 19 Ch. D. 394; 51 L. J. Ch. 265; 
 
 30 W. R. 141; 45 L. T. 689 444 
 
 Coulson ex parte, in re Gardiner. See In re Gardiner, ex parte 
 
 Coulson. 
 County ot Wellington, R. v. See R. v. County of Wellington. 
 Coupland's Claim (Barned's Banking Co.). See Barned's Bank- 
 ' ing Co. v. Coupland's Claim. 
 
 Coursolles v. Pookes (1889), 16 0. R. 691 380 
 
 Court, Gilman v. See Gilman v. Court. 
 
 Court v. Holland (1881), 29 Gr. 19 308, 325 
 
 Court v. Walsh, 1 O. R. 167; (1884), 9 O. A. R. 294 '. .156, 429 
 
 Cowan, O'Callaghan v. See O'Callaghan v. Cowan. 
 
 Cowell v. Simpson (1809), 16 Ves. 275 85 
 
 Cowell v. Taylor (1885), 31 Ch. D. 34; 55 L. J. Ch. 92; 53 L. T. 
 
 483 ; 34 W. R. 24 264 
 
 Cox in re, ex parte Hollender (1883), W. N. 186 496 
 
 Cox v. Schack (1902), 22 C. L. T. 188; 14 M. L. R. 174 289 
 
 Coyne, Rex v. See Rex v. Coyne. 
 
 Cracknall v. Janson (1877). 6 Ch. D. 735; 46 L. J. Ch. 652; 37 
 
 L. T. 118 ; 26 W. R. 904 440 
 
 Cradock v. Piper (1850), 1 Mac. & G. 664; L. J. 19 Bq. 107 412 
 
 Craig ex parte, in re Dobson. See Dobson In re, ex parte Craig. 
 Craig v. McKay et al. (1906), (in appeal), 12 O. L. R. 121, 4 O. 
 
 W. R. 274; 6 O. W. R. 160; 25 Occ. N. 10; 8 O. L. R. 651. 
 
 40 81 193 347 348 
 Grain v. Wade (1917), 55 S. C. R. 209; 37 D. L. R. 412 .'.....' 324 
 Cramer Irwin. Bank of Hamilton v. See Bank of Hamilton v. 
 
 Cramer Irwin. 
 Cramp, Wilson v. See Cramp v. Wolson. 
 
 Cramp Steel Co., re (1908), 16 O. L. R. 230; 11 O. W. R. 133 27 
 
 Cranley v. Hillary, 2 M. & S. 120 429 
 
 Cranston in re, ex parte (1892), 9 Mor.'160 101, 106, 107 
 
 Crathern, Barber v. See Barber v. Crathern. 
 
 Crawford in re, ex parte Kevan (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 752; 30 
 
 L. T. 335 ; 22 W. R. 569 350 
 
 Crawford, Kevan v. See Kevan v. Crawford. 
 Crawford v. May, in re May. See in re May. 
 Crawshaw v. Harrison (1894), 1 Q. B. 79; 63 L. J. Q. B. 94; 
 
 69 L. T. 860; 1 Man. 407 : 119 
 
 Crawshay v. Collins (1808), 15 Ves. 218, 229 470 
 
 Creditor ex parte, in re a Debtor. See in re a Debtor, ex parte 
 
 Creditor. 
 Creditors ex parte, in re a Debtor. See in re a Debtor. 
 Creese, Reg v. See Reg v. Creese. 
 Cresswell & Jameson ex parte, re Jameson & Sandys. See 
 
 in re Jameson & Sandys, ex parte Cresswell & Jameson. 
 C'rickmore, Webster v. See Webster v. Crickmore. 
 Cripps ex parte, re Cook. See in re Cook, ex parte Cripps. 
 
 Crispe v. Perritt (1744), Willes 467, 473 60 
 
 Crispin in re & ex parte (1873), L. R. Ch. 374; 42 L. J. Bank. 
 
 65; 28 L. T. 483; 21 W. R. 491 75, 95, 115, 500 
 
 Croft, William & Sons Limited, re Gardner. See re Gardner 
 
 (William Croft & Sons Limited). 
 
 Crofton v. Poole (1830) 1 B. & Ad. 568 • 296, 313 
 
 Crombie v. Jackson (1874), 34 U. C. Q. B. 575; 1 Cart 685.. 25, 162 
 
 163, 555, 557, 564 
 
 Cronmire. in re (1894), 2 Q. B. 246; 9 R. 376; 63 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 616; 70 L. T. 610; 42 W. R. 417; 1 Man. 79 496 
 
 Cronmire, in re (1901), 1 K. B. 480; 70 L. J. K. B. 310; 84 L. T. 
 
 342; 8 Man. 140 452 
 
]ii TABLE Of CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Croom, in re England v. Provincial Assets Co. (1891), 1 Ch. 
 
 695; 60 L. J. Ch. 373; 64 L. T. 53; 39 W. R. 286 214, 215 
 
 220, 225 
 Cropley in re, ex parte Fox (1911), 2 K. B. 309; 80 L. J. K. B. 
 
 822; 104 L. T. 720; 18 Mans. 11 501 
 
 Cropper, Birch v. See Birch v. Cropper. 
 
 Crosbie ex parte, re Bedell. See in re Bedell, ex parte Crosbie. 
 
 Crosby v. Crouch (1809), 2 Camp. 116, 168; 11 East. 256 341, 351 
 
 Cross in re (1848), 4 De G. & Sm. 364 n 99. 416 
 
 Cross in re, ex parte Payne (1879), 11 Ch. D. 539; 40 L. T. 297, 
 
 563; 27 "W. R. 818 40, 105 
 
 Cross, Ellis & Co. v. See Ellis & Co. v. Cross. 
 
 Crossley in re, Munns v. Burn (1887), 35 Ch. D.' 266 '430 
 
 Crossley ex parte, in re Taylor. See Taylor in re, ex parte 
 
 Crossley. 
 Croteau & Clark Co. Ltd., in re (1920), 48 O. L. R. 359; 55 D. 
 
 L. R. 413; 19 O. W. N. 199 (Orde J.) 96, 135, 172, 174 
 
 Crouch, Crosby v. See Crosby v. Crouch. 
 
 Crow in re, ex parte Collier (1907), 97 L. T. 140; 51 Sol. J. 593; 
 
 14 Mans. 279 98 
 
 Crowinshield Sturges v. See Sturges v. Crowinshield. 
 
 Crown Grain Co. v. Day (1908), A. C. 504, 507 24 
 
 Crowther, Howard v. See Howard v. Crowther. 
 
 Crumlin Viaduct Works Co. re (1879), 11 Ch. D. 755; 48 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 537; 27 W. R. 722 293 
 
 Cubitt, Stansfield v. See Stansfield y. Cubitt. 
 
 Cuddeford ex parte, re Long. See in re Long, ex parte Cudde- 
 
 ford. 
 
 Culhane v. Stuart (1884), 6 O. R. 97 284 
 
 Cullwick in re, ex parte O. R. (1918), 1 K. B. 646; 87 L. J. K. B. 
 
 827; 3 H. B. R. 33 314. 430, 632 
 
 Culley ex parte, re Adams. See In re Adams, ex parte Culley. 
 Cumberland in re, ex parte Worthington (1876). 3 Ch. D. 803.. 433 
 Cunningham in re, ex parte O. R. (1899), 80 L. T. 503. W. N. 
 
 (1899) 68; 6 Man. 199 579 
 
 Cunningham ex parte, in re Mitchell. See In re Mitchell, ex 
 
 parte Cunningham. 
 Curran, McDonald v. See McDonald v. Curran. 
 Currie, Smith v. See Smith v. Currie. 
 Curteis v. Willes (1824), 1 Car & P. 211; 6 D. & R. 244; Ry. & 
 
 M. 58 ....115 
 
 Curtis's & Harvey Ltd. Riley v. See Riley v. Curtis's & Harvey 
 
 Ltd. 
 
 Curtis ex parte, in re (1893), 9 T.'L. R. 387 116 
 
 C'usack, Cameron v. See Cameron v. Cusack. 
 
 Cushing Sulphite Fibre Co. in re (-1906), 38 N. B. R. 581. . . .555, 563 
 
 591 593 595 596 
 Cushing, Cushing Sulphite Fibre Co. v. See Cushing Sulphite 
 
 Fibre Co. v. Cushing. 
 Cushing Sulphite Fibre Co. v. Cushing, 26 C. L. T 455; (1906) 
 
 37 S. C. R. 427 595 
 
 Cushing v. Dupuy (1880), 5 A. C. 409 24, 27 
 
 Cuthbert v. Roberts, Lublach & Co. (1909), 2 Ch. 226; 78 L J 
 
 Ch. 113, 529; 100 L. T. 62, 796; 53 Sol. J. 559 '. . . 85 
 
 Cuthbertson, Hyman v. See Hyman v. Cuthbertson. 
 Cuthbertson, White v. See White v. Cuthbertson. 
 
 Cutts ex parte (1838), 3 M. & A. 549; 3 Dea. 242 550 
 
 Cycle Makers' Co. v. Sim (1903), 1 K. B. 477 255, 270 
 
 Cyrus ex parte, in re Broadridge. See in re Broadridge, ex parte 
 
 Cyrus. 
 Dagnall in re ex parte Soan & Morlev (1896), 2 Q. B. 407; 65 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 666; 75 L. T. 142; 45 W. R. 79; 3 Man. 218.. 58, 597 
 Daintrey in re, ex parte Holt (1893), 2 Q. B. 116; 62 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 511; 69 L. T. 257; 41 W. R. 590; 10 Mor. 158 120 
 
 Daintry in re, ex parte Mant (1900), 1 Q. B. 546; 69 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 207; 82 L. T. 239; 9 Mans. 107 321, 324 
 
 Dale in re, ex parte (1876), 3 Ch. D. 322, 55 L J. Bank. 129. ... 655 
 
TABLE OF CASES. liii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Dale in re, ex parte (1885), 33 W. R. 476; 52 L. T. 627; 2 Mor. 
 
 92 573 
 
 Dale, Abley v. See Abley v. Dale. 
 
 Dales in re, ex parte Green (1858), 27 L. J. Bank. 32; 3 DeG. & 
 
 J. 50 582 
 
 Dallas v. Stinson, in re McCraken. See In re McCraken, Dallas 
 
 v. Stinson. 
 Dallas re (1904), 2 Ch. 385; 73 L. J. Ch. 365; 90 L. T. 177; 52 
 
 W. R. 567 309, 311 
 
 Dallmeyer re and ex parte (1906), 22 T. L. R. 445; (1906), L. 
 
 T. U. 543; (1906), L. J. U. C. 245 512, 531 
 
 Dalamas Pulp Co., Plante v. See Plante v. Dalamas Pulp Co. 
 Dalton, Cobham v. See Cobham v. Dalton. 
 
 Dalzell re (1909), 25 T. L. R. 9; 16 Mans. 203 512 
 
 Dana v. McLean, 21 Occ. N. 555; (1901), 2 O. L. R. 466 343, 352 
 
 Dan Rylands ex parte, in re Collier. See Collier in re, ex parte 
 
 Dan Rylands. 
 Daniel ex parte, in re Roberts. See Roberts in re, ex parte Dan- 
 iel. 
 Daniell, Abell v. See Abell v. Daniell. 
 
 Daniels v. Fielding (1846), 16 M. & W. 200 500 
 
 Dann ex parte, in re Parker. See In re Parker, ex parte Dann, 
 Dansereau, Letourneux v. See Letourneux v. Dansereau. 
 Dansk Rekybriffel Syndikat Aktieselskab v. Snell (1908), 2 Ch. 
 
 127; 77 L. J. Ch. 352; 98 L. T. 830; 15 Mans. 134 264 
 
 Darby re, ex parte Brougham (1911), 1 K. B. 95; 80 L. J. K. B. 
 
 180 ; 18 Mans. 10 418 
 
 Dare and Dolphin ex parte, in re Nelson. See In re Nelson, ex 
 
 parte Dare and Dolphin. 
 Darvill, Gibbons v. See Gibbons v. Darvill. 
 
 Dashwood in re, ex parte Kirk (1886), 3 Mor. 257 644 
 
 Dauglish v. Tennent (1866), L. R. 2 Q. B. 49; 36 L. J. Q. B. 10; 
 
 15 W. R. 196 98, 217 
 
 Davey, Roberts v. See Roberts v. Davey. 
 
 David & Johnson or Adlard in re, ex parte Whinney (1914) 
 
 2 K. B. 694; 83 L. J. K. B. 1173; 110 L. T. 942; 58 Sol. J 
 
 340 ; 21 Man. 148 102. 103,108, 121 
 
 David Lloyd & Co. in re (1877), 6 Ch. D. 399 162, 563 
 
 David & Vaux, Glassbrook v. See Glassbrook v. David & Vaux. 
 
 Davidson in re and ex parte (1894) , W. N. 210 542 
 
 Davidson, Canadian Bank of Commerce v. See Canadian Bank 
 
 of Commerce v. Davidson. 
 
 Davidson v. Chalmer (1864), 10 L. T. (N.S.S.) 217 290 
 
 Davidson v. Douglas (1868), 15 Gr. 347 64 
 
 Davidson v. Fraser (1896), 23 O. A. R. 439; affd. Fraser v. 
 
 Davidson (1897), 28 S. C. R. 272 358 
 
 Davidson v. Papps (1880), 28 Gr. 91 159 
 
 Davidson v. Perry (1873), 23 TJ. C. C. P. 346 187 
 
 Davidson v. Ross (1876), 24 Gr. 22, overruling Campbell v. 
 
 Barrie, 31 U. C. Q. B. 279 > 341 
 
 Davies in re, ex parte King (1876), 3 Ch. D. 461; 45 L. J. Bank. 
 
 159; 25 W. R. 239 138 
 
 Davies ex parte, in re Baston. See In re Baston, ex parte Davies. 
 Davies ex parte, in re Sadler. See Sadler in re, ex parte Davies. 
 Davies, Taylor v. See Taylor v. Davies. 
 
 Davies v. Thomas (1900), 2 Ch. 462; 69 L. J. Ch. 643; 83 L.T. 11. 86 
 Davis in re and ex parte (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 526; 41 L. J. Bank. 
 
 69; 20 W. R. 791; 27 L. T. 53 606, 652 
 
 Davis in re, ex parte Goodman (1898), 5 Mans. 329 514 
 
 Davis in re, ex parte Poulson (1844), DeG. 79 448 
 
 Davis in re, ex parte Rawlings (1888), 22 .Q B. D. 193; 37 W R 
 
 203; 60 L. T. 157 '. . . 83 
 
 Davis in re, ex parte Turnpenny (1892), 9 Mor. 278 495, 498 
 
 Davis ex parte, in re Evans. See In re Evans, ex parte Davis. 
 Davis ex parte, in re Sneezum. See In re Sneezum, ex parte 
 
 Davis. 
 
li v TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGK 
 
 Davis v. Anderson (1870), 6 B. R. 145 198 
 
 Davis v. Bowsher (1794), 5 T. R. 488 85 
 
 Davis, Maule v. See Motion in re. 
 
 Davis v. Petrie (1906), 2 K. B. 786; 75 L. J. K. B. 992; 95 L. T. 
 
 239; 13 Man. 344 96, 146, 172, 247, 360 
 
 Davis, Selkrig v. See Selkrig v. Davis. 
 
 Davis v. Wickson (1882), 1 O. R. 369 370 
 
 Davis' Trust in re (1896), 17 P. R. 187 :.. 241 
 
 Dawbarn, Baker v. See Baker v. Dawbarn. 
 
 Dawes in re, ex parte Official Receiver (1897), 4 Mans. 117 342 
 
 Dawes ex parte, in re Husband. See In re Husband, ex parte 
 
 Dawes. 
 Dawes ex parte, in re Moon. See In re Moon, ex parte Dawes. 
 Dawson v. G. N. & City Ry. (1905), 1 K. B. 260, 270; 74 L. J. 
 
 tt g 190* 92 L T 137 > 312 
 
 Dawson v. Isle (1906), 1 Ch. 633';' 75 £,.' J. Cn! '338;' 54 W. R.452; 
 
 95 L. T. 385 80, 338, 408 
 
 Dawson, Reg. v. See Reg. v. Dawson. 
 
 Dawson, Rhodes v. See Rhodes v. Dawson. 
 
 Day in re, ex parte Hammond (1902), 86 L. T. 238; 50 W. R. 448. 98 
 
 Day, Crown Grain Co. v. See Crown Grain Co. v. Day. 
 
 Day, Palmer v. See Palmer v. Day. 
 
 Day, Parke v. See Parke v. Day. 
 
 Deacon ex parte, in re Ramsay. See In re Ramsay, ex parte 
 
 Deacon. 
 
 Deacon v. Driffil (1879), 4 O. A. R. 335 439, 440 
 
 Dean in re and ex parte (1841) , 2 M. D. & D. 12T 116 
 
 Dean in re, ex parte Blain (1902) , 18 T. L. R. 606 605 
 
 Dean in re, ex parte Rhodes (1837) , 2 Dea. 364 78 
 
 Dearie v. Hall (1828), 3 Russ. 1 307, 309 
 
 Dearie ex parte, in re Hastings. See In re Hastings, ex parte 
 
 Dearie. 
 Deblois, Gormley v. See Gormley v. Deblois. 
 De Boos ex parte, in re Shallow. See Shallow in re, ex parte 
 
 De Boos. 
 De Blaquiere, Burrowes v. See Burrowes v. De Blaquiere. 
 Debtor in re (478 of 1908), (1908), 2 K. B. 684; 77 L. J. K. B. 
 
 981; 99 L. T. 458; 15 Man. 295 606 
 
 Debtor in re (1910), 1 K. B. 313; 79 L. J. K. B. 263; 17 Mans. 6. 
 
 577, 647 
 Debtor in re (7 of 1910) (1910), 2 K. B. 59; 79 L. J. K. B. 
 
 1065; 102 L. T. 691; 17 Man. 263 133, 644 
 
 Debtor in re (1911), 2 K. B. 652; 80 L. J. K. B. 1224; 104 
 
 L. T. 905; 18 Mans. 311 428 
 
 Debtor in re (1913), 3 K. B. 11; 82 L. J. K. B. 907; 109 L. T. 
 
 323; 57 Sol. J. 579; 20 Mans. 119 135 
 
 Debtor in re (1915), 1 K. B. 287; 84 L. J. K. B. 254; 1 H. B. R. 
 
 18; 59 Sol. J. 130; 138 L. T. N. 84 608 
 
 Debtor in re (1915), 13 L. T. R. 704 134 
 
 Debtor in re (1917) , 2 K. B. 808 607 
 
 Debtor in re (No. 28 of 1917) (1917), 2 K. B. 808; (1917), 
 
 H. B. R. 235 607 
 
 Debtor in re (No. 446 of 1918) (1920), 1 K. B. 461 541, 543 
 
 Debtor in re, ex parte (1898), 2 Q. B. 576; 67 L. J. Q. B. 820; 
 
 46 W. R. 675; 78 L. T. 824; 5 Man. 122 58 
 
 Debtor in re, ex parte (No. 1 of 1914) (1914), 2 K. B. 758; 83 
 
 L. J. K. B. 1176; 110 K T. 944; 58 Sol. J. 416; 21 Man. 155.92, 98 
 
 Debtor in re and ex parte (1919), 4 H. B. R. 221 79 
 
 Debtor in re and ex parte (No. 5 of 1919) (1918-1919), B. & C. R. 
 
 282 122 
 
 Debtor in re and ex parte (1919), 88 L. J. K. B. 1248; (1918-19), 
 
 B. & C. R. 221 128 
 
 Debtor in re, ex parte Creditors (1894), 14 T. L. R. 569 61 
 
 Debtor in re, ex parte Creditor (1917), 2 K. B. 60; 86 L. J. 
 
 K. B. 745; (1917), H. B. R. 123 133 
 
 Debtor In re, ex parte Creditor (1920), B. & C. R. 1 578 
 
TABLE OF CASES. l v 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Debtor in re, ex parte Goldstein (1917), 1 K. B. 558; 86 L. J. 
 
 K. B. 705; 116 L. T. 379 509, 510, 592 
 
 Debtor in re, ex parte London & County Discount Co. (1909), 
 
 100 L. T. 380; 53 Sol. J. 246; 16 Mans. 205 131 
 
 Debtor in re ex parte O. R. (1901), 84 L. T. 666 577 
 
 Debtor in re, ex parte Person Aggrieved (1912), 106 L. T. 
 
 344; 55 Sol. J. 689 395, 578, 596 
 
 Debtor ex oarte, in re Bell. See In re Bell, ex parte Debtor. 
 
 Deeming, Goulding y. See Goulding v. Deeming. 
 
 Deeping ex parte, in re Richards. See Richards in re, ex parte 
 
 Deeping. 
 Deere in re (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 658; 44 L. J. Bank. 120; 33 L. T. 
 
 115; 23 W. R. 866 565 
 
 Deerhurst re, ex parte Seaton (1891), 60 L. J. Q. B. 412; 64 
 
 L. T. 273 ; 8 Mor. 258 445, 490 
 
 Deering v. Bank of Ireland (1886), 12 A. C. 20, 26; 56 L. J. P. C. 
 
 47; 56 L. T. 66 78, 422 
 
 Degre, Durocher v. See Durocher v. Degre. 
 
 Delves re, ex parte Parley (1833) , 3 Dea & C. 110 258 
 
 De Lisle, Ryland v. See Ryland v. De Lisle. 
 
 De Mattos, Worsley v. See Worsley v. De Mattos. 
 
 Dempsey in re, ex parte (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 676; 21 W. R. 800; 28 
 
 L. T. 860 624, 625, 626 
 
 Den, Brewer v. See Brewer v. Den. 
 
 Denison v. Smith (1878), 43 U. C. Q. B. 503 305 
 
 Denny v. Denny & Warr (1919), 1 K. B. 583 288, 330 
 
 Denny v. Warr (1918-19), B. & C. R. 139 287, 330 
 
 Denny & Warr v. Denny (1919). 1 K. B. 583 102 
 
 D'Epineuil in re (1882), 20 Ch. D. 758 82 
 
 Des Birsay, Jones Trin. T. v. See Jones Trin. T. v. Des Birsay. 
 
 Descharmes ex parte (1742), 1 Atk. 103 480 
 
 Desenges, Thomas v. See Thomas v. Desenges. 
 
 Desmarteau v. Dingman (1908), 11 O. W. R. Ill 343 
 
 Despatie, Tremblay v. See Tremblay v. Despatie. 
 
 Desportes in re (1893), 68 L. T. 233; 9 Mor. 40 510 
 
 Detmold v. Detmold in re (1889), 40 Ch. D. 585; 58 L. J. Ch. 495; 
 
 37 W. R. 442; 61 L. T. 21 287 
 
 Deveber in re and ex parte (1882), 21 N. B. R. 397 21 
 
 Deveber in re and ex parte Bank of New Brunswick (1882), 21 
 
 N. B. R. 401 21 
 
 Deveber v. Austin (1875), 3 Puss. 55 193, 202 
 
 Dever ex parte, in re Suse & Sibeth. See In re Suse & Sibeth. 
 De Vecchi in re, ex parte Isaac (1870), L. R. 6 Ch. 58; 40 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 19 165 
 
 Dewdney ex parte (1808), 15 Ves. 479 429, 489 
 
 Dewhurst ex parte, re Vanlohe. See In re Vanlohe, ex parte 
 
 Dewhurst. 
 
 Diack ex parte (1836), 2 M. & A. 675 550 
 
 Dicas, Phillips v. See Phillips v. Dicas. 
 
 Dickenson in re, ex parte Rosenthal (1882), 20 Ch. D. 315; 51 
 
 L. J. Ch. 736 606 
 
 Dickenson ex parte, in re Charrington. See In re Charrington 
 
 ex parte Dickenson. 
 Dicker, Lucas v. See Lucas v. Dicker. 
 Dicker, Payne v. See Payne v. Dicker. 
 Dickin re, ex parte Atcham Board of Guardians (1882), 46 L. T. 
 
 238; 30 W. R. 644 367 
 
 Dickin ex parte, in re Foster. See In re Poster ex parte Dickin. 
 Dickin ex parte, in re Pollard. See Pollard in re, ex parte 
 
 Dickin. 
 Dickin ex parte, in re Waugh. See in re Waugh ex parte Dickin. 
 
 Dickinson in re (1892), 2 B. C. R. 262 241 
 
 Dickson re (1892), 2 B. C. R. 262 240 
 
 Dickson, Uniake v. See Uniake v. Dickson. 
 
 Diehl v. Wallace (N.W.T.) (1905), 2 W. L. R. 24 45 
 
 Dimmack, Lloyd v. See Lloyd v. Dimmack. 
 
 Dingman, Desmarteau v. See Desmarteau v. Dingman. . 
 
Ivi TA.HLH 0/'' CAHHH. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Discount Banking Co. ex parte, re Bonacino. See In re Bonacino 
 
 ex parte Discount Banking Co. 
 
 Distin in re, ex parte Ormiston (1871), 24 L. T. (N.S.) 197 164 
 
 District Bank London ex parte, in re Genese. See In re Genese 
 
 ex parte District Bank, London. 
 
 Disney in re, ex parte Allsop (1875), 32 L. T. 433 464 
 
 Ditchman in re, ex parte Bull (1833), 3 D. & C. 166 269 
 
 Ditton ex parte, in re Woods. See in re Woods ex parte Ditton. 
 Dixon in re, ex parte Gordon (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 555; L. R. 10 
 
 Ch. 160; 42 L. J. Bank. 41; 28 L. T. 858; 21 W. R. 458 471 
 
 Dixon, Sanderson v. See Sanderson v. Dixon. 
 
 Dixon & Cardus in re, 5 Mor. 291; 37 W. R. 616; (1888-9), 59 
 
 L. T. 776 ; 5 Mor. 291 543 
 
 Dixon v. Yates, 5 B. & A. 313 84 
 
 Dixon and Wilson in re and ex parte (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 118; 
 
 53 L. J. Ch. 769; 1 Mor. 98 136 
 
 Dobie, Blacklock v. See Blacklock v. Dobie. 
 
 Dobson in re, ex parte Craig, W. N. (1903) P. 155 586 
 
 Dobson ex parte, 1 Mont. & A. 666 392, 550 
 
 Dobson ex parte, in re Thompson. See Thompson in re, ex parte 
 
 Dobson. 
 
 Doctor v. People's Trust Co. (1912), 18 B. C. R. Ill 82 
 
 Dodd ex parte, in re Ormston. See Ormston in re, ex parte 
 
 Dodd. 
 Dodd, Security Trust Co. v. See Security Trust Co. v. Dodd. 
 Dodd, Sovereign Life v. See Sovereign Life v. Dodd. 
 Dodds in re, ex parte Brown (1891), 60 L. J. Q. B. 599; 64 L T. 
 
 476; 8 Mor. 86 • 283, 308 
 
 Dodds, Cook v. See Cook v. Dodds. 
 Dodds, Hood v. See Hood v. Dodds. 
 
 Dodge in re, 8 U. C. L. J. N. S. 51 467 
 
 Doe v. Bevan (1815), 3 M: & S. 353 287 
 
 Doe Palmer v. Andrews (1827), 4 Bing. 348 304 
 
 Dolphin and Dare ex parte, in re Nelson. See In re Nelson ex 
 
 parte Dolphin & Dare. 
 
 Dominion Bank v. Ayling (1916), Q. R. 26, K. B. 75 40 
 
 Dominion Bank v. Ayling, Ryan & Hart (1917), 26 Que. K B. 
 
 75 337 
 
 Dominion Bank v. Cowan (1887), 14 O. R. 465, 466 64 
 
 Dominion Cold Storage Co., Lowrey's Case (1890), 18 P. R. 68.. 586 
 Dominion Trust Co., Arnold v. See Arnold v. Dominion Trust. 
 Dominion Trust Co., Mowat v. See Mowat v. Dominion Trust 
 
 Co. 
 Dominion Trust, Williams v. See Williams v. Dominion Trust. 
 Donnelly, Nolan v. See Nolan v. Donnelly. 
 Donovan v. Herbert (1885), 12 O. A. R. 298; Cassel's Dig. 653; 
 
 affd. in S. C. C. C'outlee, S. C. Dig. (1875-1903), 1434. .255, 
 
 378, 380 
 Doran, Jenks v. See Jenks v. Doran. 
 Douglas in re, ex parte Snowball (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 549; 41 L J. 
 
 Bank. 49; 26 L. T. 894; 20 W. R. 786 43, 92, 102, 354, 361 
 
 Douglas in re, ex parte Wilson (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 490; 41 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 46 ; 26 L. T. 489 447 
 
 Douglas, Brown v. See Brown v. Douglas. 
 
 Douglas, Davidson v. See Davidson v. Douglas 
 
 Douglas Forge Co., Ince Hall Rolling Mills v. See Ince. Hall 
 
 Rolling Mills v. Douglas Forge Co. 
 Douglas, Gage v. See Gage v. Douglas 
 
 Douglas v. Hourle (1909), 10 W. L. R. 67; 2 Sask. L. R. 67 366 
 
 Douglas, Mackay v. See Mackay v. Douglas 
 
 Doull v. Kopman (1895), 22 O. A. R. 447 377, 379 
 
 Dowling in re, ex parte Banks, 4 Ch. D 689 (1877) ; 46 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 74; 36 L. T. 117; 25 W. R. 515 313, 374 
 
 Down, Fowler v. See Fowler v. Down. 
 
 Downes ex parte, 1 Rose, 96 '. ' 407 
 
 Downing in re, ex parte Mardon (1891), 65 L. T. 665; 8 Mor. 302 596 
 
TABLE OF CASUS. lvii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Downman in re, ex parte (1863), 32 L. J. Bank. 49; De G. J. & 
 
 S. Bank. 251 528 
 
 Dowson in re, ex parte Jaynes (1887), 21 Q. B. D. 417; 57 D. J. 
 
 Q.B. 522; 36 W. R. 864; 59 L. T. 446; 5 Mor. 240 574, 648 
 
 Doyle, Smith v. See Smith v. Doyle. 
 
 Drake, Beckham v. See Beckham v. Drake. 
 
 Dresser, Smith v. See Smith v. Dresser. 
 
 Dressier ex parte, in re Solomon. See in re Solomon ex parte 
 
 Dressier. 
 Drew, G-elinas v. See Gelinas v. Drew. 
 Drew v. Josolyne (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 590; 56 L. J. Q. B. 490; 57 
 
 L. T. 377 70, 282, 306 
 
 Driffil, Deacon v. See Deacon v. Driffil. 
 
 Drinkwater v. Goodwin (1775), 1 Cowp. 251 85 
 
 Drucker in re (No. 2) (1902) 2 K. B. 210; 71 L. J. K. B. 686; 
 
 -50 W. R. 592; 86 L. T. 692; 9 Mans. 241 147 
 
 Dubuc, Heirs of A. J., Rousseau v. See Rousseau v. Heirs of 
 
 A. J. Dubuc. 
 Dubeux, Barter v. See Barter v. Dubeux. 
 
 Du Cane ex parte (1816), 1 Buck. 18 258 
 
 Duckworth re (1867), L. R. 2 Ch. 578; 36 L. J. Bank. 28; 16 
 
 L. T. 580 ■ 39, 323 
 
 Dudley v. Vaughan (1808), 1 Camp. 271 117 
 
 Dudman, Kinney v. See Kinney v. Dudman. 
 
 Duffield v. Williams, in re Berry. See in re Berry v. Williams, 
 
 ex parte Duffield. 
 Dulaney v. Merry & Son (1901), 1 K. B. 536; 70 L. J. Q. B. 377; 
 
 84 L. T. 156; 49 W. R. 331; 17 T. L. R. 253; 8 Man. 152. .74, 95 
 Dulmage, Johnston v. See Johnston v. Dulmage. 
 
 Dumbell in re, ex parte Lyon (1802), 6 Ves. 617, 622 261 
 
 Dumble v. Mcintosh, in re Music Hall Block. See Music Hall 
 
 Block, in re Dumble v. Mcintosh 284 
 
 Dumble v. White (1872), 32 U. C. Q. B. 601 557, 564 
 
 Dumelow re, ex parte Ruffle (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 997; 42 L. J. 
 
 Bank, 82; 21 W. R. 932; 29 L. T. 384 407, 427 
 
 Duncan in re, ex parte O. R. (1892), 1 Q. B. 879; 61 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 712; 66 L. T. 508; 40 W. R. 409; 9 Mor. 61 267, 269 
 
 Duncombe, Ward v. See Ward v. Duncombe. 
 
 Dunhill in re, ex parte (1894), 2 Q. B. 234; 63 L. J. Q. B. 686; 
 
 1 Mans. 242 605 
 
 Dunkley in re, ex parte Cass (1881), 45 L. T. 560 240 
 
 Dunkley & Son in re, ex parte Waller (1905), 2 K. B. 683; 74 
 
 L. J. K. B. 963; 54 W. R. 171; 12 Man. 384 102> 342, 358 
 
 359, 363, 365 
 
 Dunlop v. Rogers. 47 N. H. 231 73 
 
 Dunlop Rubber 'Co., Brandts Sons & Co. v. See Brandts Son 
 
 & Co. v .Dunlop Rubber Co. 
 
 Dunn v. Irwin (1875), 25 U. C. C. P. Ill 266, 294 
 
 Dunn in re, ex parte O. R. (1902), 1 K. B. 107; 71 L. J. K. B. 
 
 83; 85 L. T. 567; 50 W. R. 183; 9 Mans. 1 625 
 
 Dunn & Raeburn ex parte, re Brocklebank. See In -re Brockle- 
 
 bank, ex parte Dunn & Raeburn. 
 Dunn, Ross v. See Ross v. Dunn. 
 Dunn, Wood v. See Wood v. Dunn. 
 Dunsinoor's Claim. See Parkin Elevator Co. in re. 
 Durham in re, ex parte Merchants Banking Co. (1881), 16 Ch. D. 
 
 623; 50 L. J. Ch. 606; 44 L. T. 358; 29 W. R. 363 ...219, 221 
 Durocher v. Degre (1901), 21 C. L. T. 393; 20 Que. S. C. 456, 
 
 475 6 
 
 Durnford re (1895), 44 W. R. 272; 73 L. T. 583; 2 Mans. 521. 
 
 524, 527 
 
 Dutton v. Morrison (1809). 1 Rose 213; 17 Ves. 193 94 
 
 Dupont v. La Cie du Moulin (1888), 11 L. N. 225 20, 25 
 
 Dyer ex parte, in re Lake. See in re Lake, ex parte Dyer. 
 Dysart in re, ex parte Bolland (1878), 7 Ch. D. 312; 47 L. J. 
 
 Bank 74 273 
 
 Dyson, Reg. v. See Reg. v. Dyson. 
 
Iviii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 E. A. B. in re (1902), 1 K. B. 457; 71 L. J. K. B. 356; 85 L. T. 
 
 773 ; 50 W. R. 229 ; 9 Mans. 105 221, 222 
 
 Eades Estate in re (1917), 33 D. L. R. 335; 2 W. W. R. 65 
 
 (Man.) 74, 75, 537 
 
 Eager, Cameron v. See Cameron v. Eager. 
 
 East, re East London & County Banking Co. v. See East Lon- 
 don & County Banking Co. re, v. East. 
 Eastern Trust Co. v. Boston Richardson Mining Co. (1908), a 
 
 E. L. R. 558 463 
 
 East of England Banking Co.. in re (1868), L. R. 4 Ch. 14 262 
 
 East of England Banking Co., Pearson's Case, re (1872), L. R. 
 
 7 Ch. .309 : 40& 
 
 E. & W. India Dock Co., Hill v. See Hill v. E. & W. India Dock 
 
 Co. 
 Eastgate in re, ex parte Ward (1905), 1 K. B. 465; 74 L. J. K. B. 
 
 324; 92 L. T. 207; 53 W. R. 432; 12 Man. 11 41, 302, 358 
 
 Eastman v. Bank of Montreal (1885), 10 O. R. 19 438 
 
 Eastman, Briston v. See Briston v. Eastman. 
 
 Easton in re, ex parte Davies (1891), 64 L. T. 798; 8 Mor. 168. . 510 
 
 Easy in re, ex parte Hill (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 538; 56 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 624; 4 Mor. 281- 580 
 
 Eaton in re (1897), 2 Q. B. 16: 66 L. J. Q. B. 491; 4 Man. 111.. 350 
 Eatough Co. ex parte, in re Cliffe. See Cliffe in re, ex parte 
 
 Eatough Co. 
 Ebbro Vale C'o.'s Case in re v. Contract Corporation (1869), 
 
 L. R. 5 Ch. 112 440 
 
 Eclipse Gold Mining Co', in re (1874), L. R. 17 Eq. 490 394 
 
 Edgar Central Bank (1888), 15 O. A. R. 202 100 
 
 Edgcome in re, ex parte (1902), 2 K. B. 403; 71 L. J. K. B. 722; 
 
 87 L. T. 108; 50 W. R. 678; 9 Man. 227 155 
 
 Edgett v. Steaves (1906). 2 E. L. R. 131 348 
 
 Edison Electric v. Westminster Tramway Co. (1897), A. C. 193; 
 
 66 L. J. P. C. 36; 75 L. T. 438; 4 Mans. 244 354 
 
 Edmonds ex parte, 4 DeG. P. & J. 488 471 
 
 Edmontson in re. ex parte Beaumont (1834). 1 M. & A. 304 .... 257 
 Edmunds ex parte, re Green. See in re Green, ex parte Ed- 
 munds. 
 Edward re, ex parte Chalmers (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 289; 42 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 37; 28 L. T. 325; 21 W. R. 349 303 
 
 Edwards re, ex parte Baum (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 673; 44 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 25; 31 L. T. 12 163, 216, 224, 418 
 
 Edwards ex parte, re Chapman. See In re Chapman, ex parte 
 
 Edwards. 
 Edwards ex parte, in re Howe. See Howe in re, ex parte 
 
 Edwards. 
 Edwards ex parte, re Smith. See in re Smith, ex parte Edwards. 
 Edwards ex parte, in re Tollemache. See Tollemache in re, ex 
 
 parte Edwards. 
 
 Edwards v. Cooper (1874) 11 Q. B. 33 362 
 
 Edwards v. Glyn (1859), 28 L. J. Q. B. 350 352 
 
 Edwards v. Reg. (1854) , 9 Ex. R 628 61 
 
 Edwards, Florence in re, ex parte Harvey, 2 Mans. 182 58 
 
 Eldridge, in re Calumet Metals Ltd. v. See Calumet Metals 
 
 Ltd. in re, v. Eldridge. 
 Eldorado Union Store Co., The (1886), 18 N. S. R. (6 R & G.) 
 
 514 25 26 27 
 
 Elford re/ex parte (Jennys (1829),' i'm.' & McA. '258 ..... ..'....' 283 
 
 Eliot, Pearce & Co. in re, ex parte Allday & Bushill (1897), 13 
 
 T. L. R. 486 498 
 
 Elliot v. Clayton (1851), 16 Q. B. D. 581; 20 L. J. Q. B. 217.. 313 
 
 Elliott & Sons Ltd., re (1915), 9 O. W. N. 51 595 
 
 Elliott v. Hamilton (1902) 4 O. L. R. 585; 1 O. W. R. 705; 2 
 
 O. W. R. 141; 22 Occ. U. 412 187, 191 
 
 Elliott, Lackington v. See Lackington v. Elliott. 
 Elliott, Stammers v. See Stammers v. Elliott. 
 
TABLE OF CASES. fix 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Elliott, Sun Life Assurance Co. v. See Sun Life Assurance 
 
 Co. v. Elliott. 
 Elliott, Wade v. See Wade v. Elliott. 
 Elliott, White v. See White v. Elliott. 
 Ellis in re, ex parte (1876), 2 Ch. D. 797; 45 L. J. Bank. 159; 34 
 
 L. T. 705 102, 104, 105 
 
 Ellis in re, ex parte Hinshelwood (1887). 4 Mor. 283... 127, 578, 605 
 Ellis ex parte, in re Johnson. See In re Johnson, ex parte Ellis. 
 Ellis re. ex parte Thoday (1876), 2 Ch. D. 229; 45 L. J. Bank. 64; 
 
 34 L. T. 261 395 
 
 Ellis, Brayley v. See Brayley v. Ellis. 
 
 Ellis v. Ellis (1913), 25 O. W. R. 539; 5 O. W. N. 561; D. L. R. 
 
 100 452 
 
 Ellis v. Emmanuel (1876) 1 Ex. D. 157; 46 L. J. Ex. 25; 34 L. T. 
 
 553; 24 W. R. 832 423, 424 
 
 Ellis v. McCormick (1869), L. R. 42 Q. B. 271 632 
 
 Ellis v. MeHenry (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 228; 40 L. J. C. P. 169; 
 
 24 L. T. 679; 19 W. R. Dig. 24 537 
 
 Ellis v. Silber (1872), L. R. 8 Ch. 83; 42 L. J. Ch. 666; 21 W. R. 
 
 346; 28 L. T. 150 552, 557, 565 
 
 Ellis & Co. v. Cross (1915), 1 H. B. R. 239 187 
 
 Ellis & Ellis in re (1909) , 25 T. L. R. 38 669 
 
 Elliston ex Darte (1835), 2 M. & A. 365 550 
 
 Elmslie v. Corrie, 4 Q. B. D. 295; (1878), 48 L. J. Q. B. 462; 39 
 
 L. T. 107; 27 W. R. 279 535 
 
 Elston re, ex parte Ryland (1832), 2 D. & C. 392 377 
 
 Elsworth & Tidy's Contract in re (1889), 42 Ch. D. 23 39 
 
 Elwes, Lawton v. re Corsellis. See Corsellis in re, Lawton v. 
 . Elwes. 
 
 Elwes v. Mawe, S. L. C. 8th ed., Vol. II.. n. 169 63 
 
 Embury v. West (1888), 15 O. A. R. 357 348 
 
 Emden v. Carte (1881), 17 Ch. D. 169, 768; 50 L. J. Ch. 492; 44 
 
 L. T. 344, 636; 29 W. R. 600 294, 296, 313 
 
 Emerson. Brook v. See Brook v. Emerson. 
 Emerson, James v. See James v. Emerson. 
 Emma Silver Mining Co. v. Grant (1880), 17 Ch. D. 122, 130; 
 
 50 L. J. Ch. 449; 39 W. R. 481 417, 427, 448, 536, 538 
 
 Emmanuel ex parte, re Batey. See In re Batey, ex parte 
 
 Emmanuel. 
 Emmanuel, Ellis v. See Ellis v. Emmanuel. 
 Emmerson v. Tarn, in re Leng. See In re Leng. 
 
 Empire Brewing & Malting Co. (1891), 8 M. L. R. 24 84, 157 
 
 Empire Timber, Lumber & Tie Co. Ltd. (1920) 48 O. L. R. 193; 
 
 19 O. W. N. 29; 1 C. B. R. 370 (Orde J.) 27 
 
 Empire Sash & Door Co. v. Maranda (1911) 21 M. L. R. 605; 19 
 
 W. L. R. 78 64, 348. 365, 366 
 
 Empire Traction Co. Ltd. in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 361 (Blain 
 
 M. C.) 80 
 
 England in re, ex parte Pannell (1877), 6 Ch. D. 335; 47 L J. 
 
 Bank. 21 552, 564 
 
 England in re, ex parte Sheriff of Middlesex (1871), L. R. 12 
 
 Eq. 207; 40 L. J. Bank. 65; 24 L. T. 860; 19 W. R. 914.. 552, 559 
 England v. Provincial Assets Co., in re Croom. See In re Croom, 
 
 ex parte England v. Provincial Assets Co. 
 Engleback v. Nixon (1875), L. R. 10 C. P. 645; 44 L. J. C. P 
 
 396; 32 L. T. 831 27P, 
 
 English, re Martin and. See Martin & English re. 
 
 English and Amer. Bank, re Fraser Trenboline. See In re * 
 
 Fraser Trenboline, ex parte English and American Bank. 
 
 English Joint Stock Bank in re (1867), L. R. 3 Eq. 341 463 
 
 English & Ayling in re (1903), 1 K. B. 680; 72 L. J. K. B. 248; 
 
 88 L T. 127; 10 Man. 34 190 
 
 English and Colonial Produce Co., Sulton v. See Sulton v. Eng- 
 lish & Colonial Produce Co. 
 English & Scottish Life Assurance Co., Wigan v. (1909). See 
 
 Wigan v. English & Scottish Life Assurance Co. 
 
J x TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 English and Scottish Mercantile Inv. Co. v. Brimton (1893), 
 
 2 Q. B. 1; 66 L. T. 767; 41 W. R. 133 309 
 
 English, Scottish & Australian* etc. Bank (1893), 3 Ch. 885, 
 
 395-6, 410-11 558 
 
 Equitable Savings Loan & Building Assoc in re (1903), 6 0. L. 
 
 R. 26, 31 591, 592 
 
 Erdham, Reg. v. See Reg. v. Erdham. 
 
 Erly re (1878), 2 0. A. R. 617 • 45,5 
 
 Erskine in re, ex parte (1893), 10 T. L. R. 32 61 
 
 Escott, Hole v. See' Hole v. Escott. 
 
 Eslick in re, ex parte Alexander (1876). 4 Ch. D. 503 40, 69 
 
 Espuela Land & Cattle Co. re (1909). 2 Ch. 187 394 
 
 Essex Land & Timber Co., re Trout's Case (1891), 21 O. R. 
 
 367 162, 564 
 
 European Bank ex parte, re Oriental Commercial Bank. See 
 
 in re Oriental Commercial Bank. 
 
 Evans in re, ex parte (1884), 50 L. T. 158; 32 W. R. 281 141 
 
 Evans in re, ex parte Salaman (1916), 2 H. B. R. Ill 142, 146 
 
 148, 189 
 Evans ex parte, Davies (1897), 66 L. J. Q. B. 49© ; 76 L. T. 530; 
 
 46 W. R. -8; 4 Mans. 114 454 
 
 Evans ex parte, re Orbell. See In re Orbell, ex parte Evans. 
 Evans ex parte, re Richards. See In re Richards v. Evans. 
 Evans ex parte, in re Watkins. See In re Watkins, ex parte 
 
 Evans. 
 Evans v. Hallam (1871), L. R. 6; Q. B. 713; 40 L. J. Q. B. 229; 
 
 24 L. T. 939; 19 W. R. 1158 362 
 
 Evans, Martin v. See Martin, v. Evans. 
 
 Evans, Siggers v. See Siggers v. Evans. 
 
 Evelyn re ex parte General Public Works Co. (1894), 2 Q. B. 
 
 302; 63 L. J. Q. B. 658; 70 L. T. 692; 1 Mans. 195.. 163, 393, 394 
 
 Everett v. Robinson (1858), 28 L. J. Q. B. 23 495 
 
 Everett, Rutter v. See Rutter v. Everett. 
 
 Ewart Carriage Works, Ltd., in re, 24 C. L. T. 374; (1904), 8 O. 
 
 L. R. 527; 4 O. W. R. 149 605 
 
 E. W. A., a debtor re (1901), 2 K. B. 642; 70 L. J. K. B. 810; 
 
 85 L. T. 31; 49 W. R. 642; 8 Mans. 250 135 
 
 Excelsior Dairy Machinery Ltd. re (1920), 1 C. B. R. 388; 19 O. 
 
 W. N. 292 (Holmested R.) 606 
 
 Exchange Bank v. Canadian Bank of Commerce M. L. R. 2 Q. 
 
 B. 476 320 
 
 Exchange Bank of Canada v. The Queen (1885), 11 A. C. 157 
 
 465, 481, 610 
 Exchange Banking Co. in re, Flitcroft's case (1882), 21 Ch. D. 
 
 519 44 
 
 Exhall Coal Mining Co. in re (1864), 4 DeG. J. & S. 377 479 
 
 Eyden, Gibbons v. See Gibbons v. Eyden. 
 
 Eyre in re (1841) , 2 M. D. & D. 66 322 
 
 Eyre ex parte and re (1881), 44 L. T. 922 288, 330 
 
 Palls v. Young (1906). 8 O. W. R. 397 366 
 
 Fabian ex parte, re Landrock. See In re Landrock, ex parte 
 
 Fabian. 
 Fair, Brownscombe v. See Brownscombe v. Fair. 
 Fair, Smith v. See Smith v. Fair. 
 FairgrieVe, Samuel v. See Samuel v. Fairgrieve. 
 
 Fallis v. Wilson, 15 O. L. R. 55 331 
 
 Fanshawe in re. ex carte Birmingham Gas Co., L. R. 11 Eq. 615; 
 
 40 L. J. Bank. 52 ; 24 L. T. 639 ; 19 W. R. 603 478 
 
 Fanshawe re, ex parte Le Marchant (1905), 1 K. B. 170; 74 L. 
 
 J. K. B. 153; 92 L. T. 32; 23 W. R. 222; 12 Mans. 7 443 
 
 Fanshawe ex parte,- in re Wood. See Wood in re, ex parte 
 
 Fanshawe. 
 Fanshawe, Howard v. See Howard v. Fanshawe. 
 Fanshawe, Napper v. re Green. See In re Green. 
 Farah, Grills v. See Grills v. Farah. 
 Farebrother, Bernasconi v. See Bernasconi v. Farebrother. 
 
TABLE OF VAXES. ]xi 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Farewell, re Rogers and. See Rogers & Farewell re. 
 
 Farley ex parte, re Delves. See in re Delves, ex parte Farley. 
 
 Farley v. Turner (1857), 26 L. J. Ch. 710; 19 L. T. 257 284 
 
 Farnham in re (1895), 2 Ch. 799; 810, 811; 64 L. J. Ch. 717; 73 
 L. T. 231; 12 R. 554; S. C. (1896-), 1 Ch. 836; 3 Mans. 109 
 
 59 333 
 Farnham (No. 2) (1896), 1 Ch. 836; 65 L. J. Ch. 456; 44 W. r! 
 
 465; 74 L. T. 214; 3 Mans. 123 568 
 
 Farnham v. Milward (1895), 2 Ch. 730; 64 L. J. Ch. 816; 73 L. 
 
 T. 434; 44 W. R. 135 266, 300 
 
 Farquhar's claim, in re Sun Lithographing Co. See Sun Litho- 
 graphing Co. in re, Farquhar's claim. 
 
 Farrell v. O'Neil (1871), 22 U. C .C. P. 31 534 
 
 Farmers Bank of Canada in re (1916), 28 D. L. R. 328; 35 0. L. 
 
 R. 470 587 
 
 Fashion Shop Co. re (1915), 35 O. L. R. 253; 21 O. L. R. 478.. 39 
 
 465, 479, 481 
 Faulconer in re, ex parte Cochrane (1889), 61 L. T. 56; 6 Mor. 
 
 206 603,604 
 
 Fayne v. Langley, Lavender v. Langley (1889), 31 O. R. 254.. 464 
 Fearnley, Wright v. See Wright v. Fearnley. 
 
 Felch v. Bugbee, 48 Me. 9 73 
 
 Fells in re. ex parte Andrews (1876), 4 Ch. D. 509; 46 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 23; 36 L. T. 38; 25 W. R. 382 156, 247 
 
 Fendal in re, ex parte Lodge (1790), 1 Ves. 166 471 
 
 Fereday, Jenkins v. See Jenkins v. Fereday. 
 
 Ferguson in re (1908), 17 O. L. R. 576; 12 O. W. R. 1143 512 
 
 Ferguson v. Bryans (1904), 24 Occ. N. 194; 15 M. L. R. 170 349 
 
 Ferguson, Magann v. See Magann v. Ferguson. 
 
 Ferguson v. Spencer (1840), 10 L. J. C. P. 20; 1 Mans. & G. 987 
 
 537 
 
 Fiddian Squire & Co. re (1892), 66 L. T. 203; 9 Mor. 95 114, 605 
 
 Field re (1887), 4 Mor. 63 465 
 
 Fielding, Daniels v. See Daniels v. Fielding. 
 
 Figs v. Moore (1894), 2 Q. B. 690; 63 L. J. Q. B. 709; 71 L. T. 
 
 232 ; 1 Man. 404 118, 190 
 
 Finch re, ex parte Sheriff of Essex (1891), 65 L. T. 466; 40 W. 
 
 R. 175 ; 8 Mor. 284 191 
 
 Finch v. Gilray. 16 O. R. 393, (1889), 16 O. A. R. 484 351 
 
 Findlay ex parte, re Collie. See In re Collie, ex parte Findlay. 
 
 Findlay, Buchanan v. See Buchanan v. Findlay. 
 
 Findlay, Van Wagner v. See Van Wagner v. Findlay. 
 
 Finney in re, ex parte Goater (1874), 30 L. T. 620; 22 W. R. 
 
 935 113, US 
 
 Firbank in re, ex parte Knight (1887), 4 Mor. 50 571. 586 
 
 Firth in re, ex parte Schofleld (1877), 6 Ch. D. 230; 46 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 112; 37 L. T. 281 507 
 
 Firth in re, ex parte Schofleld (1879), 40 L. T. N. S. 464. 823.. . 438 
 Firth in re, ex parte Schofleld (1879), 12 Ch. D. 337; 48 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 122; 27 W. R. 925; 40 L. T. 464, 823 80, 407, 408 
 
 409, 444 
 
 Fisher ex parte, L. R. 7 Ch. 636; 41 L. J. Bank. 62 343 
 
 Fisher ex parte., in re Ash. See In re Ash, ex parte Fisher. 
 
 Fisher v. Boucher (1830), 10 B. & C. 705 114 
 
 Fisher v. Bradshaw, 22 Occ. N. 281, (1902), 4 O. L. R. 162; 1 O. 
 
 W. R. 282 349 
 
 Fisher v. Trustee, in re Winwood's settlement. See Winwood's 
 
 settlement in re, Fisher v. Trustee. 
 Fisher v. Wilklie Ltd. (1920), 1 C. B. R. 376; 19 O. W. N. 251; 
 
 (Holmested R.) 167 
 
 Fisker v. Brooke (1879) , 4 O. A. R. 8 39 
 
 Fitzgerald, Blong v. See Blong v. Fitzgerald. 
 
 Fitzgeorge in re, ex parte Robson (1905), 1 K. B. 462; 74 L. J. 
 
 K. B. 322; 92 L. T. 206; 53 W. R. 384; 12 Man. 14 226, 427 
 
 Fitzgerald in re. ex parte Hobbs (1916), 2 H. B. R. 157 496 
 
] x ji TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Platau in re, ex parte 0. R. (1893), 4 R. 414; 2 Q. B. 219; 62 
 
 L J. Q.B. 569; 68 L. T. 740; 41 W. R. 529; 10 Mor. 151. .542, 543 
 
 Flatau in re, ex parte Scotch Whiskey Co. (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 
 
 83; 37 W. R. 42 134, 488 
 
 Fleetwood & District Electric, Etc., (1915), 1 Ch. 486 ....429, 488 
 
 Fleming re (1886), 11 P. R. 426 397 
 
 Fleming Fraser & Co., ex parte Trustee (1886), in re 60 L. T. 
 154 3 *5 
 
 Fleming, Peters v. See Peters v. Fleming. 
 
 Fletcher in re, ex parte Bainbridge (1878), 8 Ch. D. 218; 47 
 L. J. Bank 70; 26 W. R. 439; 38 L. T. 229 70 
 
 Fletcher in re, ex parte Suffolk (1891), 9 Mor. 8 : .302, 346, 348, 352 
 
 Fletcher ex parte, in re Hart. See Hart in re, ex parte Fisher. 
 
 Fleury v. Pringle (1878), 26 Gr. 67 355 
 
 Flew in re, ex parte (1905), 1 K. B. 278; 74 L. J. K. B. 289; 92 
 L. T. 333; 53 W. R. 438; 12 Man. 1 220, 222, 223 
 
 Flood, Heaton v. See Heaton v. Flood. 
 
 Florida in re, 8 B. C. R. 388 - ■ 651 
 
 Flint v. Barnard (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 90; 68 L. J. Q. B. 83; 37 
 W. R. 185 224 
 
 Florence Land & Public Works Co. in re, Nichol's Case (1885), 
 
 29 Ch. D. 421 M 
 
 Flower ex parte (1847), DeG. 503 550 
 
 Flower, Rolte v. See Rolfe v. Flower. 
 
 Flowers & Co. in re (1897), 1 Q. B. 14; 65 L. J. Q. B. 679; 3 
 Mans. 294 65 4 
 
 Foley ex parte, in re Spaekman. See In re ©packman, ex parte 
 Foley. 
 
 Foljambe, White v. See White v. Foljambe. 
 
 Follett ex parte (1845), DeG. 212 550 
 
 Follick in re, ex parte Trustee (1908), 97 L. T. 645; 52 Sol. J. 
 
 13 604 
 
 Fookes, Coursolles v. See Coursolles v. Fookes. 
 
 Ford in re ex parte O. R. (1900), 1 Q. B. 264; 69 L. J. Q. B. 74; 
 81 L. T. 648; 48 W. R. 173; 7 Man 14 189, 192 
 
 Ford in re, ex parte Trustee (1900), 2 Q. B. 211; 82 L. T. 625; 
 
 48 W. R. 688 82 
 
 Ford ex parte, re Caughey. See In re Caughey, ex parte Ford. 
 
 Ford v. Nuthall, in re Nuthall. See Nuthall in re Ford v. Nut- 
 hall. 
 
 Foreman ex parte, in re Hann. See Hann in re, ex parte Fore- 
 man. 
 
 Foreman, Mittens v. See Mittens v. Foreman. 
 
 Foreman ex parte, in re Price. See Price in re, ex parte Fore- 
 man. 
 
 Forrest v. Laycock (1871), 18 Gr. 611 355 
 
 Forrester v. Thrasher, 9 P. R. 383 (1882), 2 O. R. 38 534 
 
 Forster ex parte, re Hanson. See In re Hanson, ex parte 
 Forster. 
 
 Forster, Armstrong v. See Armstrong v. Forster. 
 
 Forster, Hopkinson v. See Hopkinson v. Forster. 
 
 Forster v. Wilson, 12 M. & W. 191 321 
 
 Forsyth, McAllister v. See McAllister v. Forsyth. 
 
 Fort George Lumber and Navigation Co. in re (1913), 48 S. 
 C. R. 593; 16 D. L. R. 175; 26 W. L. R. 884; 5 W. W. R. 
 982 157 
 
 Foster in re. ex parte Dickin (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 767; 44 L. J. 
 Bank. 113; 33 L. T. 37 391,438,448 
 
 Foster in re, ex parte O. R. (1895), 72 L. T. 364; 43 W. R. 428. 283 
 
 Foster in re, ex parte Rawlings (1887), 58 L. T. 114; 36 W. R. 
 
 144; 4 Mor. 292 97, 145, 173, 283 
 
 Foster ex parte (1810) , 17 Ves. 416; 1 Rose 50 116 
 
 Foster ex parte, re Webster. See In re Webster, ex parte Foster. 
 
 Foster ex parte, re Woolstenholme. See In re Woolstenholme, 
 ex parte Foster. 
 
 Foster v. Russell (1886), 12 O. R. 136 103,349 
 
TABLE OF CASES. l x jjj 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Foster v. Trusts and Guarantee Co. (1916), 35 0. L. R. 426 93 
 
 Fothergill, Hardy v. See Hardy v. Fothergill. 
 
 Fothergill in re, ex parte Turquand (1876), 3 Ch. D. 445; 45 L. 
 
 J. Bank. 153 425 
 
 Foulds in re, ex parte Learoyd (1878), 10 Ch. D. 3; 48 L. J. Bank. 
 
 17; 39 L. T. 525; 27 W. R. 277 148, 395, 599 
 
 Fountain. Black v. See Black v. Fountain. 
 
 Fourdriniere ex parte (1882), 21 Ch. D. 510 557 
 
 Fowler ex parte, in re Wilkinson. See In re Wilkinson, ex parte 
 
 Fowler. 
 
 Fowler v. Down (1797), 1 B. & P. 44 294 
 
 Fowler, Martin v. See Martin v. Fowler. 
 
 Fowler v. Perrin (1866), 16 U. C. C. P. 258 226, 535 
 
 Fox in re, ex parte Barry (1873), L. R. 17 Eq. 113; 43 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 18; 29 L. T. 620; 22 W. R. 205 70 
 
 Fox ex parte, in re Cropley. See Cropley in re, ex parte Fox. 
 
 Fox ex parte, in re Smith. See In re Smith, ex parte Fox. 
 
 Fox, Hodgson, v. in re Hodgson. See In re Hodgson. 
 
 Fox, Regina v. See Regina v. Fox. 
 
 Fox, Webb v. See Webb v. Fox. 
 
 Fox & Jacobs in re, ex parte Discount Banking Co., 10 R. 70; 
 
 (1894), 1 Q. B. 438; 63 L. J. Q. B. 191; 69 L. T. 657; 42 W. 
 
 R 351; 10 Mor. 295 440, 455 
 
 Foxley ex parte, in re Nurse. See In re Nurse, ex parte Fox- 
 ley. 
 Frances Handford & Co. in re (1899), 1 Q. B. 566; 68 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 386; 47 W. R. 391; 80 L. T. 125; 15 T. L. R. 197; 6 Man. 
 
 131 58 
 
 Francis & Co. ex parte, re Bruno Silva & Co. iSee In re Bruno 
 
 Silva & Co. 
 Franks in re, ex parte Gittins (1892), 1 Q. B. 646; 40 W. R. 
 
 384; 9 Mor. 90 510 
 
 Franks ex parte (1831), 7 Bing. 762; 1 M. & Sc. 1 57 
 
 Fraser in re, ex parte Central Bank of London (1892), 2 Q. B. 
 
 633; 67 L. T. 401; 9 Mor. 256 133, 488 
 
 Fraser ,v. Chalmers, Ltd., re (1919), 2 Ch. 114 394 
 
 Fraser, Codville v. See Codville v. Fraser. 
 
 Fraser, Davidson v. See Davidson v. Fraser. 
 
 Fraser v. Kirkpatrick, 5 W. L. R. 287; (1907), 6 Terr. L. R. 
 
 403 12, 13 
 
 Fraser v. Province of Brescia Steam Tramways (1887), 56 L. T. 
 
 771 263, 264 
 
 Fraser v. Thompson (1859), 4 DeG. & J. 659 108 
 
 Fraser Trenholme & Co. re, ex parte English & American Bank 
 
 (1868-9), L. R. 4 Ch. 49; 19 L. T. 302 438 
 
 Freeland, Baines v. See Baines v. Freeland. 
 
 Freeman in re and ex parte (1890), 62 L. T. 367; 7 Mor. 38.519, 522 
 
 French ex parte, in re (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 63; 62 L. T. 93; 38 
 
 W. R. 52; 6 Mor. 258 149, 159, 160 
 
 French, Leslie v. See Leslie in re Leslie v. French. 
 
 French ex parte, re Trim. See In re Trim ex parte French. 
 
 Frere ex parte, in re Sykes. See Sykes in re, ex parte Frere. 
 
 Frere in re and ex parte, 1 Mont, and McA. 263 87 
 
 Freshfield's Trusts re (1879), 11 Ch. D. 198 309 
 
 Freston in re (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 545; 52 L. J. Q. B. 545; 31 W. 
 
 R. 304 ; 49 L. T. 290 497 
 
 Fripp, Hunt v. See Hunt v. Fripp. 
 
 Frith v. Cartland (1865), 2 Hern & M. 417; 34 L. J. Ch. 301.. 285 
 
 Frost in re ex parte O. R. (1899), 2 Q. B. 50; 68 L. J.-Q. B. 663; 
 
 47 W. R. 512; 80 L. T. 496; 6 Man. 194 389 
 
 Frost and Wood Co. v. Stoddart (1908), 12 O. W. R. 1133; 12 
 
 O. W. R. 230 ; 12 O. W. R. 688 466 
 
 Fry v. Moore (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 395; 58 L. J. Q. B. 382; 61 L. 
 
 T. 545; 37 W. R, 565 605 
 
 Fry. Singer & Co. v. See Singer & Co. v. Fry. 
 
] x iv TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PACE 
 
 Fry, Ward v. See Ward v. Fry. 
 Fry, Wilkins v. See Wilkins v. Fry. 
 Fryer, Rex v. See Rex v. Fryer. 
 
 Fuches v. Hamilton Tribune Co. (1884) 10 P. R. 409 39, 142 
 
 187, 479 
 Fuke, Boschock Proprietary Co. v. See Boschock Proprietary 
 
 Co. v. Fuke. 
 Fuller ex parte, in re Long (1881). See Long in re, ex parte 
 
 Fuller. 
 Furber ex parte, re King (1881). See King in re, ex parte 
 
 Furber. 
 Furber ex parte, in re Parsons. See Parsons in re, ex parte 
 
 Furber. 
 Furber ex parte, in re Pellen (1877). See Pellen in re, ex parte 
 
 Furber. 
 Furber, Graham v. See Graham v. Furber. 
 Furness Finance Co. ex parte, in re Seaman. See Seaman in re. 
 
 ex parte Furness Finance Co. 
 Fyson, Tuck v. See Tuck v. Fyson. 
 
 Gage v. Douglas (1891), 14 P. R. 126 265 
 
 Galbraith in re, and Christie (1880), 5 0. A. R. 358 527 
 
 Galbraith v. Grimshaw (1910), A. C. 508; 79 L. J. K. B. 1011; 
 
 17 Mans. 183 585 
 
 Gallard in re and ex parte (1897), 2 Q. B. 8; 66 L. J. Q. B. 484; 
 
 76 L. T. 327; 45 W. R. 556; 4 Man. 52 256. 257, 260, 412 
 
 Gallard in re, ex parte G. (1896), 1 Q. B. 68; 65 L. J. Q. B. 199; 
 
 73 L. T. 457; 44 W. R. 121; 2 Man. 515 267, 412, 413 
 
 Gallow, Tennant v. See Tennant v. Gallow. 
 
 Gait, Home v. See Home v. Gait. 
 
 Games ex parte, in re Bamford. See In re Bamford, ex parte 
 
 Games. 
 Gamgee in re, ex parte Ward (1891), 60 L. J. Q. B.-574; 39 W. R 
 
 579; 64 L. T. 730; 8 Mor. 162 127 
 
 Gamgee, Bennett v. See Bennett v. Gamgee. 
 
 Gardiner in re, ex parte Coulson (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 249; 57 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 149; 36 W. R. 142; 58 L. T. 119; 5 Mor. 1 58, 59 
 
 Gardner, re, (ex parte William Croft & Sons Limited) (1921), 
 
 I C. B. R. 424; 19 O. W. N. 525; (Orde, J.) 220 
 
 Gardner v. Brown (1890) , 19 O. R. 202 294 
 
 Gardner v. Kloepfer (1888) 7 O. R. 603 128, 489 
 
 Gariepy, Girard v. See Girard v. Gariepy. 
 
 Garland, Lester v. See Lester v. Garland. 
 
 Garland, Son & Co. y. O'Reilly (1911), 44 S. C. R. 197; (affirm- 
 ing O'Reilly v. O'Reilly) 21 O. L. R. 201; 16 O. W. R. 75. . . 451 
 
 Garland, Thibaudeau v. See Thibaudeau v. Garland. 
 
 Garnett in re, ex parte Bullock (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 698; 35 
 L. J. Q. B. 77; 2 Mor. 286 497 
 
 Garrard in re (1905), 92 L. T. 779 .' 651 
 
 Garrard v. Lauderdale (1831), 2 Russ. & M. 451 187 
 
 Garratt re (1869), 28 U. C. Q. B. 266- 215, 617 
 
 Garratt, Allan v. See Allan v. Garratt. 
 
 Garrud in re ex parte Newitt (1881), 16 Cb. D. 522; 51 L. J. Cli. 
 
 381; 44 L. T. 5; 29 W. R. 344 241. 288 
 
 Gaskell re (1904), 2 K. B. 478; 73 L. J. K. B. 656; 91 L. T. 221; 
 
 II Mans. 125 523, 668 
 
 Gastonguay v. Savoie (1899), 29 S. C. R. 613 256, 412 
 
 Gates v. Seagram, 17 O. L. R. 493; (1909), 12 O. W. R. 1192.. 321 
 Gaze ex parte, in re Lane. See Lane in re, ex parte Gaze. 
 
 Gearing in re,' ex parte White (1881) . 29 W. R. 632 255 
 
 G. B. B. in re (1903) 2 K. B. 340; 72 L. J. K. B. 712; 89 L. T. 
 
 245; 51 W. R. 1675; 10 Man. 243 323, 579 
 
 Geen, Societe Generale v. See Societe Generale v. Geen. 
 
 Geiger in re (1913), 109 L T. 224 514, 570, 643 
 
 Geiger re (1915), 1 K. B, 439; 59 Sol. J. 250 ....255, 267, 269\ 282 
 
 Geiger re (1915) , W. N. 7 ' 411 
 
 Geisel ex parte, re Stanger. See Stanger in re, ex parte Geisel. 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 1 xv 
 
 page' 
 
 Gelinas v. Drew (1877), 3 0. L. R. 361 '. . . 215 
 
 Geller ex parte, 2 Mad. 262 468 
 
 Geller v. Loughrin (1911), 24 O. L. R. 18 628 
 
 Gemmill v. Nelligan (1895), 26 O. R. 307 293 
 
 General Furnishing & Upholstering Co. v. Venn (1863), 32 L. J. 
 
 Ex. 220; 2 H. & C. 153; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 550; 8 L. T. 432; 
 
 11 W. R. 756 94 
 
 General Public Works Co. ex parte, re Evelyn. See In re Evelyn, 
 
 ex parte General Public Works. 
 
 General Rolling Stock Co. in re, L. R. 7 Ch. 646, 648, 649 429 
 
 Genese in re, ex parte Dist. Bank of London (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 
 
 700; 55 L. J. Q. B.'ll8; 34 W. R. 79;. 2 Mor. 283 451, 452 
 
 Genese in re, ex parte Gilbert (1886), 3 Mor. 223 507 
 
 Genese in re, ex parte Kearsley (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 1; 55 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 225; 3 Mor. 57 219, 223, 579 
 
 Gennys ex parte, re Elford. See In re Elford, ex parte Gennys. 
 
 Genser, Cartier v. See Cartier v. Genser. 
 
 Gentry in re (1910), 1 K. B. 825; 79 L. J. K. B. 585; 102 L. T. 
 
 553; 17 Man. 104; 54 S. J. 377 128, 134, 141, 360 
 
 George v. Somers (1855), 16 C. B. 539 536 
 
 Gerth, Stephens v. in re Ont. Express & Transportation. See 
 
 Ont. Express & Transportation in re, Stephens & Gerth. 
 Gershaw & Levy in re, ex parte Cook & Richards (1915), 2 K. 
 
 B. 527; 84 L. J. K. B. 1668; 1 H. B. R. 146 82, 362 
 
 Gibbons v. Darvill (1888), 12 P. R. 478 377 
 
 Gibbons v. McDonald, 19 O. R. 290; (1890), 18 O. A. R. 159; 20 
 
 S. C. R. 587 ' 343,852 
 
 Gibbons v. Wilson, 17 O. R. 290; (1890), 17 O. A. R. 1 364 
 
 Gibbs ex parte, re Webb. See Webb in re, ex parte Gibbs. 
 Gibbs and Sons v. La Societe etc. des Metaux (1890), 25 Q. B. 
 
 D. 399; 59 L. J. Q. B. 510; 63 L. T. 503 537 
 
 Gibert v. Gonard (1884). 54 L. J. Ch. 439; 52 L. T. 54; 33 W. 
 
 R. 302 284 
 
 Gibson ex parte, in re Low. See Low in re, ex parte Gibson. 
 
 Gibson v. Boutts (1836), 3 Sc. 229 345 
 
 Gibson v. Carruthers (1841), 8 M. & W. 321 301, 302, 305 
 
 Gibson v. Jeyes, 2 Ves. 266 257 
 
 Gilbert ex parte, in re Genese. See Genese in re, ex parte Gil- 
 bert. 
 Gilbey ex parte, re Bedell. See in re Bedell, ex parte Gilbey. 
 Gilchrist ex parte, in re Armstrong. See In re Armstrong, ex 
 
 parte Gilchrist. 
 
 Gilchrist and Island in re, 11 O. R. at 539 280 
 
 Giles re, ex parte Stone (1889), 61 L. T. 82; 37 W. R. 767; 6 
 
 Mor. 158 417, 418, 420 
 
 Giles v. Randall (1915), 1 K. B. 290; 34 L. J. K. B. 786 649 
 
 Giles. Thompson v. See Thompson v. Giles. 
 
 Gill ex parte in re Shaw. See Shaw in re, ex parte Gill. 
 
 Gillard v. Bollert (1893), 24 O. R. 147 48 
 
 Gillard v. Milligan (1897), 28 O. R. 645 187, 188, 191 
 
 Gillespie (1913), re, 23 M. L. R. 5; 23 W. L. R. 45; 3 W. W. R. 
 
 791; 9 D. L. R. 94 468 
 
 Gillespie re, ex parte Robarts (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 286; 56 L. J 
 
 Q. B. 74; 56 L. T. 599 420 
 
 Gillespie, Merchants Bank of Halifax v. See Merchants Bank 
 
 of Halifax v. Gillespie. 
 
 Gillett & Co. v. Lumsden (1905), A. C. 601 594 
 
 Gillingham v. Laing (1816), 6 Taunt 532 116 
 
 Gillow, Halford v. See Halford v. Gillow. 
 
 Gilman v. Court, 13 R. L. 619 (Q. B.) 320 
 
 Gilmour, Whitmore v. See Whitmore v. Gilmour. 
 
 Gilray, Pinch v. See Finch v. Gilray. 
 
 Gimblett ex parte, in re Lane-Fox. See Lane-Fox in re. ex 
 
 parte Gimblett. 
 
 n.c. — E 
 
] xv i TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Ginsberg re (1917), 40 0. L. R. 136; 27 C. C. C. 447 507, 644 
 
 Girard v. Gariepy (1916), 49 Q. S. C. R. 284; 17 Que. P. R.396:. 463 
 Gitley, Troughton v. See Troughton v. Gitley. 
 Gittins ex parte, in re Franks. See Franks in re, ex parte Git- 
 tins. 
 
 Glaister v. Hewer (1797), 7 T. R. 498 132 
 
 Glanville in re, ex parte Jenkins (1885), 2 Mor. 71; 33 "W. R. 
 
 523 263 
 
 Glass ex parte, re Macfadyen. See Macfadyen in re, ex parte 
 
 ' ' ' Glass. 
 
 Glass, Boyd v. See Boyd v. Glass. 
 
 Glass v. Grant (1888), 16.0. R. 233 378 
 
 Glassbrook v. David and Vaux (1905), 1 K. B. 615; 74 L. J. K. B. 
 
 492; 92 L. T. 299; 53 W. R. 408 191 
 
 Gledhill, Halifax Joint Stock Banking Co. v. See Halifax Joint 
 
 Stock Banking Co. v. Gledhill. 
 Glegg v. Bromley (1913), 3 K. B. 474; 81 L. J. K. B. 1081; 106 
 
 L. T. 825 107, 111, 330, 341, 365 
 
 Glover, C'artwright v. See Cartwright v. Glover. 
 
 Glyn ex parte (1840), 1 M. D. '& D. 25 440 
 
 Glyn ex parte, re Ridge. See Ridge in re, ex parte Glyn. 
 Glyn, Edwards v. See Edwards v. Glyn. 
 
 Goas ex parte, in re Clement. See In re Clement, ex parte Goas. 
 Goater ex parte, re Finney. See In re Finney, ex parte Goater. 
 Goatley ex parte, in re Jones. See Jones in re, ex parte Goat- 
 ley. 
 Goddard, Shears v. See Shears v. Goddard. 
 Godding in re, ex parte Trustee (1914), 2 K. B. 70; 83 L. J. K. B. 
 
 1222; 110 L. T. 207; Sol. J. 252; 21 Man. 137 189 
 
 Godfrey ex parte, in re Winslow. See "Winslow in re, ex parte 
 
 Godfrey. 
 Goding ex parte, re Morris. See Morris in re, ex parte Goding. 
 
 Godkin v. Beech (1876), 10 N. S. R. 261 534 
 
 Goetz. Jonas & Co. ex parte, The Trustee (1898). 1 Q. B. 787; 
 
 67 L. J. Q. B. 577; 14 T. L. R. 327; 78 L. T. 399; 46 "W. R. 
 
 469; 5 Man. 76 63 
 
 Gold Co. in re (1879). 12 Ch. D. 77; 48 L. J. Ch. 650; 40 L. T. 
 
 865; 27 W. R. 757 592 
 
 Gold v. Ross (1903), 10 B. C. R. 80 484 
 
 Goldberg in re, ex parte Page (1912), 1 K. B. 606; 81 L. J. K. 
 
 B. 663; 106 L. T. 431; 19 Man. 138 144, 146 
 
 Goldberg in re, ex parte Silverstone (1912), 1 K. B. 384; 81 
 
 L. J. K. B. 382; 105 L. T. 959; 19 Man. 44.. 108, 361 
 
 Goldfine ex parte, Rosenweig v. Hart. See Rosenweig v. Hart, 
 
 ex parte Goldfine. 
 Goldsmid in re, ex parte Taylor, 18 Q. B. D. 295; (1887), 56 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 195; 35 W. R. 148 345, 346, 352, 355 
 
 Goldsmid v. Cozenove, 7 H. L. C. 785 467 
 
 Goldstein in re (1917), 1 K. B. 558 •. 514 
 
 Goldstein ex parte, in re Debtor. See Debtor in re, ex parte 
 
 Goldstein. 
 Goldstein ex parte, in re Huntley. See Huntley in re, ex parte 
 
 Goldstein. 
 
 Golloghy v. Graham (1872), 22 U. C. C. P. 226 584 
 
 Gomard, Gilbert v. See Gilbert v. Gomard. 
 
 Gommersall (1875), 1 Ch. D. 137, 142; 45 L. J. Bank 1; 33 L. 
 
 T. 483; affd. Sub. Nom. Jones v. Gordon (1877) 2 A. C. 
 
 616 427 
 
 Gommersall in re, ex parte Gordon (1875), 1 Ch. D.- 137; 45 
 
 L. J. Bank. 1; 35 L. T. 483 272, 539 
 
 Gonville's Trustee v. Pat. Caramel Co. (1912) 1 K.B. 599; SI 
 
 L. J. K. B. 291; 105 L. T. 831; 19 Man. 37 103, 108, 351 
 
 Good ex parte, re Armitage. See In re Armitage, ex parte Good. 
 Good ex parte, in re Lee. See Lee in re, ex parte Good. ■ 
 Good ex parte, in re West. See West in re, ex parte Good. 
 
TABLE 01'' CASES. ] X vii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Good v. Cheeseman, 5 B. & Ad. 323 429 
 
 Good v. Nepisiquit Lumber Co. (1913), 11 D. L. R. 850; 41 N. 
 
 B. R. 57; 12 E. L. R. 89 84, 157 
 
 Goodere, Bromley v. See Bromley v. Goodere. 
 
 Gooding in re (1880) , 5 0. A. R. 643 528 
 
 Goodman in re (1916), 26 Can. C. C. 84; 26 M. L. R. 537; 10 
 
 W. W. R. 781 627 
 
 Goodman ex parte, in re Davis. See Davis in re, ex parte Good- 
 man. 
 Goodson in re, MacKay v. MacKay v. Goodson in re. 
 Goodwin, Drinkwater v. See Drinkwater v. Goodwin. 
 
 Goodwin v. Noble (1857), 8 E. & B. 587; 28 L. J. Q. B. 204 305 
 
 Goold, Riddell v. See Riddell v. Goold. 
 
 Gordon in re, ex parte Navalchand (1897), 2 Q. B. 516; 66 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 768; 46 W. R. 31; 4 Man. 141 82, 188 
 
 Gordon in re, ex parte O. R. (1899), 61 L. T. 299; 6 Mor. 150.. 80 
 Gordon in re, in re Salmond (1903), 2 K .B. 164; 72 L. J. K. B. 
 
 587; 89 L. T. 25; 10 Mans. 253 501 
 
 Gordon ex parte, in re Bryant. See Bryant in re, ex parte 
 
 Gordon. 
 Gordon ex parte, re Dixon. See In re Dixon, ex parte Gordon. 
 Gordon ex parte, re Gomersall (1875). See Gomersall in re, 
 
 ex parte Gordon. 
 Gordon, Austin v. See Austin v. Gordon. 
 Gordon, Capital and Counties Bank v. See Capital & Counties 
 
 Bank v. Gordon. 
 Gordon, Jones v. See Jones v. Gordon. 
 Gordon v. Matthews (1909), 18 O. L. R. 340, 344; 19 O. L. R. 
 
 564 448,466 
 
 Gordon, McEachern v. See McEachern v. Gordon. 
 
 Gordon, Nanson v. See Nanson v. Gordon. 
 
 Gordon v. Union Bank of Canada (1899), 26 O. A. R. 155.. 354, 366 
 
 Goring ex parte (1790), 1 Ves. 169 261 
 
 Gormley v. Deblois (1912), 11 E. L. R. 575, 577 489 
 
 Gorringe v. Irwell India Rubber Co. (1886), 34 Ch. D., 128; 56 
 
 L. J. Ch. 85; 35 W. R. 86; 55 L. T. 572 • 293 
 
 Gould, Vars v. See Vars v. Gould. 
 
 Goulding v. Deeming (1887), 15 O. A. R. 201 349, 365, 366 
 
 Gouldwell in re/ex parte Squire (1868), L. R. 4 Ch. 47; 38 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 13; 19 L. T. 272 175 
 
 Graham v. Bell (1884), 17 N. S. R. (5 R. & G.) 90 5 
 
 Graham v. Furber (1854), 14 C. B. 134; 23 L. J. C. P. 173 357 
 
 Graham, Golloghy v. See Golloghy v. Graham. 
 
 Graham v. Lang (1886), 10 O. R. 248 482 
 
 Graham v. Lewis (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 1; 58 L. J. Q. B. 117; 37 
 
 W. R, 73 66 
 
 Graham v. McKernan (1877), 42 U. C. Q. B. 368 '. 294 
 
 Graham, Smith v. See Smith v. Graham. 
 
 Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Atty.-General of Canada (1907), A. C. 
 
 65, 68 24 
 
 Granger, Hudson v. See Hudson v. Granger. 
 
 Grant in re, ex parte Whinney (1886). 17 Q. B. D. 238; 55 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 369; 54 L. T. 632; 34 W. R. 539; 3 Mor. 118 . . .89, 225, 514 
 Grant ex parte, in re Macdonald. See Macdonald in re, ex 
 
 , parte Grant. 
 Grant, Canadian Lumbering and Timber Co. v. See Canadian 
 
 Lumbering & Timber Co. v. Grant. 
 Grant. Emma Silver Mining Co. v. See Emma Silver Mining 
 
 Co. v. Grant. 
 Grant, Glass v. See Glass v. Grant. 
 Grant, Hope v. See Hope v. Grant. 
 
 Grant. Kuntz Brewery v. See Kuntz Brewery v. Grant. 
 Grason in re, ex parte Taylor (1879), 12 Ch. D. 366; 41 L. T. 
 
 6 ; 28 W. R. 205 I . .* 451 
 
 Gratton ex parte (1841), 2 M. D. & De G. 401 132 
 
 Gravel v. Stewart (1873), 17 L. C. J. 326 174 
 
l xv jii TABLE OE CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 Graves ex parte, in re Harris. See Harris in re, ex parte Graves. 
 Graves ex parte, re Prince. See Prince in re, ex parte Graves. 
 
 Graves v. McArdle (1873), 33 U. C. Q. B. 252 534 
 
 Gray ex parte, New Land Development Assoc, in re. See New 
 Land Development Assoc, in re, ex parte Gray. 
 
 Gray v. Hatch (1871), 18 Gr. 72 240, 290, 308 
 
 Graydon in re, ex parte O. R. (1896), 1 Q. B. 417; 65 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 328; 74 L. T. 175; 44 W. R. 495; 3 Man. 5 313 
 
 Great Central Gas Co. v. Krehl. See Krehl v. Great Central 
 
 Gas. Co. 
 Great Eastern Ry.. Lord's Trustee v. See Lord's Trustee v. 
 
 Great Eastern Ry. 
 G. E. Ry. Co.. Low V. See Low v. G. E. Ry. Co. 
 G. N. & City Ry., Dawson v. See Dawson v. G N. & City Ry. 
 Great Northern Construction in re, Ross v. McRae (1916), 53 
 
 SCR 128 . 595 
 
 G. W. Ry., Rouch v. See Rouch v. G. W. Ry. 
 G. W. Ry Co., U. S. Steel Products Co. v. See U. S Steel Pro- 
 ducts Co. v. G. W. Ry. 
 Greaves in re, ex parte 0. R. (1904), 2 K. B. 493; 73 L. J. K. B. 
 
 975; 91 L. T. 80; 53 W. R. 633; 11 Man. 270 580 
 
 Greaves re, ex parte Whitton (1880), 43 L. T. 480 444 
 
 Green re, ex parte Cooper (1878), 39 L. T. 260 375 
 
 Green re, ex parte Edmunds (1886) 53 L. T. 967; 2 Mor. 294 .. 270 
 Green ex parte, in re Dales. See Dales in re, ex parte Green. 
 Green ex parte, in re Hart. See Hart in re, ex parte Green. 
 Green ex parte, in re Laurie. See Laurie in re. ex parte Green. 
 
 Green v. Bradfleld (1844), 1 C. & K. 449 364 
 
 Green, Brand v. See Brand v. Green. 
 
 Green v. Lawrie (1847). 1 Ex. 335; 17 L. J. Ex. 61 61 
 
 Green v. Morris (1914), 1 Ch. 562; 83 L J. Ch. 559; 110 L T. 
 
 508; 58 Sol. J. 398 259 
 
 Green v. Swan (1872) 22 U. C. C. P. 307 216 
 
 Greenburg v. Lenz (B. C.) (1905), 2 W. L. R 64 363 
 
 Greener v. Kahn (1906), 2 K. B. 374; 75 L. J. K. B. 660; 95 L. 
 
 T. 481 .' 264 
 
 Greenside & Co., Topham v. See Topham v. Greenside Firebrick 
 
 Co. 
 Greensill, Hunter v. See Hunter v. Greensill. 
 
 Greenwood v. Humber (Portugal) Ltd. (1899), 6 Mans. 42 300 
 
 Greenwood. Wilson v. See Wilson v. Greenwood 
 
 Greer in re (1895), 2 Ch. 217; 64 L. J. Ch. 620; 72 L. T 865; 6 
 
 Mans. 42 538 
 
 Gregory, Prout v. See Prout v. Gregory. 
 
 Grepe in re (1887), 4 Mor. 128 651 
 
 Grey's Brewery in re (1883), 25 Ch. D. 400; 53 L. J. Ch 262; 
 
 50 L. T. 14 506, 511 
 
 Grieves re, ex parte Pearce (1879), 13 Ch. D. 262; 41 L T 742: 
 
 28 W. R. 404 '. 427 
 
 Griffin in re. ex parte Board of Trade (1890), 8 Mor. 1; 39 W. 
 
 R. 156 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 235 527 
 
 Griffin ex parte, in re Adams (1879). See In re Adams, ex parte 
 
 Griffin. 
 Griffin. Brand v. See Brand v. Griffin. 
 
 Griffith .in re (1886), 1 Mor. Ill ,218 
 
 Griffith ex parte, in re Wilcoxon. See Wilcoxon in re, ex parte 
 Griffith. 
 
 Griffith v. Brown (1870) 21 U. C. C. P. 12 . . 482 
 
 Griffiths ex parte, 3 D. M. & G. 174 ... 429 
 
 Griffiths v. Boscowitz (1841), Cam. S. C. Cases 239 109 
 
 Griffiths v. Perry (1881) 6 O. A. R. 672 . . . .353 
 
 Grills v. Parah (1910), 16 O. W. R. 285; 21 O. L. R. 457; 1 O. 
 
 W. N. 978 ■ 321 
 
 Grimsby v. Ball (1843), 11 M. & W. 531 ". 47 
 
 Grimshaw. Galbraith v. See Galbraith v. Grimshaw. 
 
 Gnmwood ex parte (1836), 3 Mont. & A. 290 392 
 
TABLE OF CA.SEH. l x i x 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Grinstone, Chambers & Co. v. See Chambers & Co., v. Grin- 
 stone. 
 CJrissel ex parte, in re Regent's Canal Iron Works Co. See 
 
 Regent's Canal Iron Works Co. in re, ex parte Grissel. 
 Grissell's Case (1866), 65 L. J. Ch. 752; L. R. 1. Ch. 528; 14 
 
 L. T. 843; 14 W. R. 1015 323 
 
 Gronow, Smith v. See Smith v. Gronow. 
 Grough, Stuart v. See Stuart v. Grough. 
 Groves v. McArdle (1873), 33 TJ. C. Q. B. 252; 9 C. L. J. .126 ... 534 
 
 Grundy v. Johnston (18%) . 28 O. R. 147 213 
 
 Grunwald ex parte, in re Lee. See Lee in re, ex parte Grun- 
 
 wald. 
 Guedalla, in re (1905), 2 Ch. 331; 75 L. J. Ch. 52; 54 W. R. 
 
 77; 12 Man. 392; 94 L. T. 94 155, 315 
 
 Guedalla, Montefiore v. No. 1. See Montefiore v. Guedalla. 
 
 Guinane (1898) 18 P. R. 208 '. 506, 5*9 
 
 Gullick, Wolmershausen v. See Wolmershausen v. Gullick. 
 Gundy & Johnston ex parte, in re Sharp. See Sharp in re, 
 
 ex parte Gundy. 
 Gunn, Nicholson v. See Nicholson v. Gunn. 
 Gunsbourg in re (No. 3), (1920), 2 K. B. 426; 89 L. J. K. B. 
 
 725 142 
 
 Gunsbourgh in re, ex parte Trustee, No. 2, (1918-19). B. & C. R. 
 
 108 91,103,106,358 
 
 Gunstone, Chambers & Co. v. See Chambers & Co. v. Gunstone. 
 Gurney in re, ex parte Hughes (1892), 67 L. T. 598; 9 Mor. 
 
 294 302 
 
 Gutierrez ex parte and re (1879), 11 Ch. D. 298; 43 L. J. Bank. 
 
 79; 40 L. T. 355; 27 W. R. 497 115, 500 
 
 Gutteridge, Ross v. See Ross v. Gutteridge. 
 
 Guy v. Churchill (1888), 40 Ch. D. 481; 58 L. J. Ch. 345; 60 L. 
 
 T. 473; 37 W. R. 504 260, 268, 277, 295 
 
 Guy in re, ex parte Scantlebury (1887), 4 Mor. 300 S77 
 
 Gwynne v. Holroyd. See Holroyd v. Gwynne. 
 
 Gyll in re, ex parte Board of Trade (1888). 58 L. J. Q. B. 8; 
 
 37 W. R. 164; 59 L. T. 778; 5 Mor. 272 . 541' 
 
 Hadfield, Rushford v. See Rushford v. Hadfleld. 
 
 Hadley v. Beedom (1895), 1 Q. B. 646; 64 L. J. Q. B. 240; 43 
 
 W. R. 218; 72 L. T. 493; 2 Man. 47 94 
 
 Haes ex parte, in re X. Y. See X. Y. in re, ex parte Haes. 
 
 Hagan & Co. in re, ex parte Adamson (1886), 3 Mor. 117 .... S79 
 
 Hayne v. Rolleston (1768) , 4 Burr. 2176 96 
 
 Haight, Casner v. See Casner v. Haight. 
 
 Haight v. Munro (1860), 9 U. C. C. P. 462 172 
 
 Haines ex parte (1858), 3 De G. & J. 58; 27 L. J. Bank. 33 582 
 
 Halberstain in re, ex parte Lister (1881), 17 Ch. D. 518; 29 W R. 
 
 621 S15 
 
 Haldan, Archibald v. See Archibald v. Haldan. 
 
 Hale ex parte, in re Binns. See Binns in re, ex parte Hale. 
 
 Hale v. Allnutt (1856), 18 C. B. 505; 25 L. J. C. P. 267 103 
 
 Hale v. Boustead (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 453; 51 L. J. Q. B. 255; 46 
 
 L. T. 533 300, 536 
 
 Hale, Robertson v. See Robertson v. Hale. 
 Haley, McKitrick v. See McKitrick v. Haley. 
 
 Halford v. Gillow (1842), 13 Sim. 44 550 
 
 Halifax Joint Stock Banking Co. v. Gledhill (1891), 1 Ch. 31; 
 
 60 L. J. Ch. 181; 63 L. T. 623; 39 W. R. 104 330 
 
 Hall in re„ L. R. 7 Ir. 180 310 311 
 
 Hall in re, ex parte O. R. (1907), 1 K. B. 875; 76 L. J. K. B. 546; 
 
 97 L. T. 33; 51 Sol. J. 292; 14 Man. 82 143, 148, 248, 291, 538 
 
 Hall ex parte (1753), 1 Atk. 201 117 
 
 Hall ex parte, in re Cooper. See In re Cooper, ex parte Hall. 
 Hall ex parte, in re Sutton. See Sutton in re, ex parte Hall. 
 Hall ex parte, re Townsend. See Townsend in re, ex parte Hall 
 Hall, Bank of Toronto v. See Bank of Toronto v. Hall. 
 Hall, Campbell v. See Campbell v. Hall. 
 Hall, Dearie v. See Dearie v. Hall. 
 
] xx .' TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Hall v. Kissock (1853) , 11 U. C. Q. B. 9 364 
 
 Hall v. Lannin (1879), 30 U. C. C. P. 204 471 
 
 Hall, Thomas v. See Thomas v. Hall. 
 
 Hall v. Wallace, 7 M. & W. 353 , . 354 
 
 Hallam, Evans v. See Evans v. Hallam. 
 
 Hallett re, ex parte National Insurance Co. (1894), 42 W. R. 
 
 651; 71 L. T. 408; 1 Mans. 380 421 
 
 Hallett ex parte, in re Moss. See Moss in re, ex parte Hallett. 
 Hallett, Tooth v. See Tooth v. Hallett. 
 
 Hallett & Co. in re, ex parte Blane (*1893), 10 Mor: 250 241 
 
 Hallet & Co. in re, ex parte Cocks, Biddulph & Co. (1894), 2 
 
 Q. B. 256; 63 L. J. Q. B. 676; 70 L. T. 891; 1 Man. 83.. 80, 438 
 Hallett's Estate in re (1879), 13 Ch. D. 696; 39 L. J. Ch. 415; 
 
 42 L. T. 421; 28 W, R. 732 284, 285 
 
 Halliday ex parie, in re Liebert. See Liebert in re, ex parte 
 
 Halliday. 
 Halliday v. Harris (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 668; 43 L. J. C. P. 350; 
 
 30 L. T. 680; 22 W. R. 756 • 551, 568 
 
 Hallifax ex parte (1842), 2 M. & D. 544 362 
 
 Hallowell ex parte, 3 M. & A. 538 98 
 
 Hally, Campbell v. See Campbell v. Hally. 
 
 Halstead in re, ex parte Richardson (1917), 1 K. B. 695; 86 
 
 L.J. K. B. 621; (1917), H. B. R. 60, 68-9, 76 91, 175 
 
 Halter, The Molsons Bank v. See Molsons Bank v. Halter. 
 
 Halwell v. Township of Wilmot (1897), 24 O. A. R. 628 352 
 
 Hamilton, Elliott v. See Elliott v. Hamilton. 
 
 Hamilton, Luxton v. See Luxton v. Hamilton. 
 
 Hamilton, Mason v. See Mason v. Hamilton. 
 
 Hamilton v. Vipond (1921), 1 C. B. R. 483; 20 O. W. N. 214 
 
 (Logie, J.) 177 
 
 Hamilton Ideal Mfg. Co., Ltd., re (1915), 34 O. L. R. 66 27 
 
 Hamilton Tribune Co., Fuches v. See Puches v. Hamilton Tribune. 
 Hamilton Whip Co., Wakefield Rattan Co. v. See Wakefield 
 
 Rattan Co. v. Hamilton Whip Co. 
 Hamlin, Miller v. See Miller v. Hamlin. 
 
 Hammond ex parte (1820), 1 Buck. 464 258 
 
 Hammond ex parte, in re Day. See In re Day, ex parte Ham- 
 mond. 
 Hammond, Affleck v. See Affleck v. Hammond. 
 Hammond v. Bank of Ottawa (1910), 17 O. W. R. 121; 2 O. W. 
 
 N. 99; 22 O. L. R. 73 47 
 
 Hampson, Tomlinson v. See Tomlinson v. Hamoson. 
 
 Hance v. Harding (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 732; 57 L. J. Q. B. 403; 
 
 59 L. T. 659; 36 W. R. 629 331 
 
 Hancock v. Caffyn (1832), 8 Bing. 358; 1 M. & Scott 521 295 
 
 Hancock in re, ex parte Hillearys (1904), 1 K. B. 585; 73 L. J. 
 
 K. B. 245; 90 L. T. 389; 52 W. R. 547; 11 Man. 1 313, 541 
 
 Hands v. Andrews re Smith. See In re Smith, ex parte Andrews 
 
 v. Hands. 
 
 Hands v. Slaney (1800), T. R. 578 ' 56 
 
 Haney, Wellbanks v. See Wellbanks v. Haney. 
 
 Hankey, Vernon v. See Vernon v. Hankey. 
 
 Hann in re, ex parte Foreman (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 393; 56 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 161; 35 W. R. 370; 4 Mor. 16 572 
 
 Hannington, Keyes v. See Keyes v. Hannington. 
 
 Hanson re, ex parte Forster (1887), 56 L. T. 573; 35 W R. 456; 
 
 4 Mor. 98 ' 132 
 
 Hanson. Allen v., in re Scottish Canadian Asbestos Co. See 
 
 Scottish Canadian Asbestos Co., in re Allen v. Hanson. 
 Hanson, McDonald v. See McDonald v. Hanson. 
 Hanson, Vernon v. See Vernon v. Hanson. 
 Harber, Jones v. See Jones v. Harber. 
 
 Harcourt ex parte (1815), 2 Rose, 203 137 
 
 Hardcastle, Turner v. See Turner v. Hardcastle. 
 
 Harding, Hance v. See Hance v. Harding. ■ 
 
 Harding ex parte, in re Pickering. See Pickering in re, ex parte 
 
 Harding. 
 
TABLE OF CASUS. l xx i 
 
 I'AGE 
 
 Hardingham, Markwick v. See Markwick v. Hardingham. 
 Hardwick, Kitson v. See Kitson v. Hardwick. 
 
 Hardy in re (1896), 1 Ch. 904; 65 L. J. Ch. 461; 3 Mans. 150. . . 580 
 Hardy v. Fothergill, 13 App. Cas. 351 (1888), 37 W. R. 117; 58. 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 44; 59 L. T. 273 419, 420 
 
 Hare v. Waring (1838), 3 M. & W. 362 114 
 
 Harepath re, ex parte Delmar (1890), 7 Mor. 129 420 
 
 Hargreaves ex parte (1788), 1 Cox 440; 11 Ves. 414 471 
 
 Hargreaves, Terrington v. See Terrington v. Hargreaves. 
 
 Harman v. Richards (1853), 22 L. J. Ch. 1066 108 
 
 Harper ex parte, in re Pooley. See Pooley in re, ex parte Harper. 
 Harper ex parte, in re Tillet. See Tillet in re, ex parte Harper. 
 Harrington. Smith v. See Smith v. Harrington. 
 
 Harris re (1876), 12 C. L. J. 251 237 
 
 Harris in re, ex parte Graves (1881), 19 Ch. D. 1; 51 L. J. Ch. 
 
 1; 45 L. T. 397; 30 W. R. 51 60 
 
 Harris in re, ex parte Trustee (1896), 74 L. T. 221; 3 Mans. 46. 497 
 Harris in re, ex parte Trustee (1907), 54 W. R. 460; 14 Mans. 
 
 127 103 
 
 Harris ex parte, 1 Rose, 437 471 
 
 Harris ex parte (1814), 2 Rose 67 113, 117 
 
 Harris ex parte (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 264 141 
 
 Harris v. Amery (1865), L. R. 1 C. P. 148 154 597 
 
 Harris, Halliday v. See Halliday v. Harris. 
 Harris, Richardson v. See Richardson v. Harris. 
 
 Harris v. Rickett (1859), 28 L. J. Ex. 197; 4 H. & N. 1 103 
 
 Harris v. Truman (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 264; 51 L. J. Q. B. 539; 46 
 
 L. T. 844 41, 284 
 
 Harris, Western v. See Western v. Harris. 
 
 Harrison in re (No. 3) (1919). 25 B. C. R. 545 566 
 
 Harrison in re, ex parte Butters (1880), 14 Ch. D. 265; 28 W. 
 
 R. 876 ; 43 L. T. 2 565 
 
 Harrison in re, ex parte Jay (1880), 14 Ch. D. 19; 42 L. T. 600; 
 
 28 W. R. 449 41, 43. 101. 287 288, 358. 368 
 
 Harrison in re, ex parte Sheriff of Essex (1893), 2 Q. B. Ill; 62 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 266; 68 L. T. 590; 41 W. R. 512; 10 Mor. 106.190. 191 
 Harrison ex parte, re Cannock Colliery Co. See In re Cannock 
 
 Colliery Co. ex parte Harrison. 
 Harrison ex parte, in re Peake. See Peake in re, ex parte Harri- 
 son. 
 Harrison, Alton v. See Alton v. Harrison. 
 
 Harrison v. Cohen (1875), 32 L. T. 717 : 102 
 
 Harrison v. Nepisiquit Lumber Co. Ltd. (1911), 11 E. L R 
 
 314 '. 25, 40, 46, 47 
 
 Harrison, Crawshaw v. See Crawshaw v. Harrison. 
 
 Harrison & Ingram in re, ex parte Whinney (1900), 2 Q B. 
 
 710; 69 L. J. Q. B. 942; 83 L. T. 189; 49 W. R. 2; 16 T. L R 
 
 530 ; 7 Mans. 378 329 
 
 Harrison, Ingram & Co. in re, ex parte Whinney (1906), 54 W. R 
 
 203; 14 Mans. 132; (1905), W. N. 143 260 
 
 Hart v. Allen (1902) , 40 N. S. R. 352 ■ 64 
 
 Hart re, ex parte Bayly (1880), 15 Ch D. 223; 43 L. T. 181; 29 
 
 W. R. 287 151, 165 
 
 Hart in re, ex narte Caldcot (1884), 25 Ch. D. 716; 53 L. J. Ch. 
 
 618; 50 L. T. 651; 32 W. R. 396 438 
 
 Hart in re, ex parte Fletcher (1878), 9 Ch. D 381; 39 L. T. 187; 
 
 26 W. R. 843 564 
 
 Hart in re, ex parte Green (1912), 3 K. B. 6; 81 L. J. K. B. 1213; 
 
 107 L. T. 368; 19 Man. 334 201, 332, 359, 361,371 
 
 Hart, Lee v. See Lee v. Hart. 
 
 Hart, Rose v. See Rose v. Hart. 
 
 Harte v. Ont. Express and Transportation Co., Molsons Bank 
 
 Claim (1898), 25 O. R. 247 558 
 
 Harte and Ontario Express and Transportation Co., in re (1892) 
 
 22 O. R. 510 293. 477 
 
 Hartley, Roberts v. See Roberts v. Hartley. 
 
 Harvey in re, ex parte Phillips (1888), 36 W. R. 567 39 
 
IXXH 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 •» PAGE 
 
 Harvey in re, ex parte Pixley (1889), 60 L. T. 710; 37 W. R. 
 
 620; 6 Mor. 95 287 
 
 Harvey ex parte, and in re (1890), 7 Mor. 138, 142, 143 341, 342 
 
 Harvey ex parte, in re Florence Edwards. See In re Edwards, 
 
 Florence ex parte Harvey. 
 Hasluck ex parte, in re Lehman. See Lehman in re, ex parte 
 
 Hasluck. 
 Hasluck ex parte, re North. See North in re, ex parte Hasluck. 
 Hasluck ex parte, in re Rose. See Rose in re, ex parte Hasluck. 
 Hassall in re, ex parte Brooke (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 301; 43 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 49; 30 L. T. 103; 22 W. R. 395 120, 189 
 
 Hastie ex parte, in re Batson. See Batson in re, ex parte Hastie. 
 Hastings in re, ex parte Brown (1892), 61 L. J. Q. B. 654; 67 
 
 L. T. 234; 9 Mor. 234 81, 157, 165, 364 
 
 Hastings in re, ex parte Dearie (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 184; 54 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 74; 33 W. R. 440; 1 Mor. 281 127, 578 
 
 Hastings, ex parte, in re Wilson. See Wilson in re, ex parte 
 
 Hastings. 
 Hastings, Kerr v. See Kerr v. Hastings. 
 Hatch, Gray v. See Gray v. Hatch. 
 Hatt ex parte, in re Ash. See Ash in re. ex parte Hatt. 
 Hattersley ex parte, in re Blanshard. See Blanshard in re, ex 
 
 parte Hattersley. 
 Hawker ex parte, in re Keely. See Keely in re, ex parte 
 
 Hawker. 
 Hawkins re, ex parte O. R. (1892), 1 Q. B. 890; 61 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 458; 66 L. T. 737; 9 Mor. 118 523 
 
 Hawkins in re, ex parte Troup (1895), 1 Q. B. 404; 43 W. R. 
 
 306; 64 L. J! Q. B. 673; 72 L. T. 41; 2 Man. 14 134 
 
 Hawkins ex parte, in re Bradbrook. See Bradbrook in re, ex 
 
 parte Hawkins. 
 
 Hawkins v. Whitten (1829), 10 B. & C. 217 325 
 
 Hawley in re, ex parte Ridgway (1897), 76 L. T. 501; 4 Man. 41. 
 
 98, 128 
 Hawley, in re Hoskins and. See Hoskins and Hawley, in re. 
 
 Hay, in re (1913), 110 L. T. 47; 30 T. L. R. 131 136, 139 
 
 Hay, Chenoweth v. See Chenoweth v. Hay. 
 
 Hay, Sidaway v. See Sidaway v. Hay. 
 
 Haycock, Rose v. See Rose v. Haycock. 
 
 Hayman in re, ex parte Pratt (1882), 21 Ch D. 439; 52 L J 
 
 Ch. 120; 31 W. R. 187,; 47 L. T. 368 508, 511 
 
 Hayman ex parte, re Pulsford. See Pulsford in re, ex parte Hay- 
 man. 
 
 Haynes re, ex parte Kibble (1890), 7 Mor. 50 132, 605 
 
 Haynes ex parte, in re Ring. See Ring in re, ex parte Hayne's 
 Hay ward ex parte and re (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 546; 40 L. J Bank 
 
 49; 24 L. T. 782; 19 W. R. 833 ' 130 
 
 Heap re, ex parte Board of Trade (1887), 4 Mor. 314 522, 527 
 
 Heapy ex parte, in re Hollingshead. See Hollingshead in re, 
 
 ex parte Heapy. 
 
 Heath ex parte (1832), M. & Bl. 16ft 550 
 
 Heathcote v. Livesley (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 285; 56 L. j Q JB 
 
 645 ; 36 W. R. 127 . . ng 
 
 Heathcote, Lloyd v. See Lloyd v. Heathcote. 
 
 Heather v. Webb (1876), 2 C. P. D. 1; 46 L. J. C. P. 89; 25 W. R. 
 
 253 535 539 
 
 Heaton v. Flood (1898), 29 O. R. 87 ................'.'.'.'.".' ! 48 
 
 Heaven ex parte, in re Lundy Granite Co. See Lundy Granite 
 
 Co. in re, ex parte Heaven. 
 Hecquard in re and ex part$ (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 71; 38 W. R. 
 
 108; 6 Mor. 282 61, 115, 139 
 
 Hedges v. Preston (1889), 80 L. T. 847 94 
 
 Hedley in re, ex parte Board of Trade (1895), 1 Q. B. 923; 64 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 460; 72 L. T. 470; 43 W. R. 464; 2 Man. 186.. 519, 520 
 
 Hegan v. Jones (1874) , 2 Pugs. 290 229 
 
 Helliwell in re, ex parte Mackenzie (1872), L. R. 20 Ea 758; 
 
 44 L. J. Bank. 117 582 
 
TABLE OF C.IXEX. lxxiii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Hemming ex parte, re Chatterton. See In re Chatterton, ex 
 
 parte Hemming. 
 
 Hemsworth in re, ex parte Underwood (1845), De G. 190 669 
 
 Henderson v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. (1916), 30 D. L. R. 62 . . 562 
 
 Henderson v. Kerr (1875), 22 Grr 91 162, 564 
 
 Henderson, King v. See King v. Henderson. 
 
 Henderson v. Macdonald (1873), 20 Gr. 334 217 
 
 Henderson, Lazier v. See Lazier v. Henderson. 
 
 Henderson, Sinclair v. See! Sinclair v. Henderson. 
 
 Henderson, Small v. See Small v. Henderson. 
 
 Hendry, Payne v. See Payne v. Hendry. 
 
 Hendry ex parte, in re Von Weissenfeld. See Von Weissenfeld 
 
 in re, ex parte Hendry. 
 
 Henley & Co. in re (1878), 9 Ch. D. 469 at 481 609 
 
 Henning, in re (1921) , 1 C. B. R. 461 (Panneton, J.) 41 
 
 Henry ex parte, in re Byrne. See In re Byrne, ex parte Henry. 
 
 Henry, Regina v. See Reglna v. Henry. 
 
 Henry, Struthers v. See Struthers v. Henry. 
 
 Hepburn in re, ex parte Smith (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 394; 54 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 452 430 
 
 Herbert, Donovan v. See Donovan v. Herbert. 
 
 Hercules Insce. Co. (1871), 6 Ir. R. Bq. 207 586 
 
 Hergert, Kalus v. See Kalus v. Hergert. 
 
 Herman in re (1915) , H. B. R. 41 103, 106 
 
 Herman Loog, Ltd. in re (1887), 36 Ch. D. 502 560 
 
 Hernaman, Tucker v. See Tucker v. Hernaman. 
 
 Hersee v. White (1869). 29 U. C. Q. B. 232 64 
 
 Hess in re (1895), 23 S. C. R. 644, 665, 666 558 
 
 Hester in re, 22 Q. B. D. 632; (1889), 60 L. T. 943; 6 Mor. 85. 
 
 541, 542, 543 
 Hett, Bower v. See Bower v. Hett. 
 Hewer, Glaister v. See Glaister v. Hewer. 
 
 Heyden in re (1869) , 29 U. C. Q. B. 262 189 
 
 Heyman in re and ex parte (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 488 501 
 
 Hickinbotham, Brown v. See Brown v. Hickinbotham. 
 Hickman in re, ex parte Strawbridge (1883), 25 Ch. D. 266; 
 
 53 L. J. Ch. 323; 49 L. T. 638; 32 W. R. 173 223, 409 
 
 Hicks, Kitching v. See Kitching v. Hicks. 
 
 Hide in re, ex parte Llynvi Coal & Iron Co. (1871), L. R. 7 Ch. 
 
 28; 41 L. J. Bank. 5; 25 L. T. 609; 20 W. R. 105 419, 429 
 
 Higgins, Marsh v. See Marsh v. Higgins. 
 
 Higgins, Mason v., in re Kennedy. See Kennedy, in re Mason 
 
 v. Higgins. 
 Higgs in re, ex parte Leicester (1892), 66 L. T. 296; 20 W. R. 
 
 432 . . 514 
 
 High River' Meat Market v.'Routledge (1908), 8 W.' L.R.'259l '. 351 
 
 Higinbotham v. Holme (1811), 19 Ves. 88 43, 101, 287 
 
 Hill in re (1882), 7 O. A. R. 694 527 
 
 Hill ex parte, in re Bird. See In re Bird, ex parte Hill. 
 Hill ex parte, in re Easy. See Easy in re, ex parte Hill. 
 Hill, Bartley's Trustee v. See Bartley's Trustee v. Hill. 
 Hill, Bentley's Trustee v. See Bentley's Trustee v. Hill. 
 Hill, Parker in re, Morgan v. See Parker in- re, Morgan v. Hill. 
 
 Hill v. Settle (1917) , 1 Ch. 319 312, 373, 375 
 
 Hillary, Cronley v. See Cronley v. Hillary. 
 
 Hillearys ex parte, in re Hancock. See Hancock in re, ex parte 
 
 Hillearys. 
 
 Hills in re, ex parte Lang (1912), 10 L. T. 95 389 
 
 Hilton in re, ex parte March (1892). 67 L. T. 594; 9 Mor. 286 638 
 
 Hilton ex parte (1820) , 1 J. & W. 467 550 
 
 Hingston v. Campbell (1866), 2 U. C. L. J. N. S. 299 174 
 
 Hinshelwood ex parte, in re Ellis. See In re Ellis 
 
 Hiram Maxjm Lamp Co. in re (1903), 1 Ch. 70; 72 L. J Ch. 18; 
 
 87 L. T. 729 323 
 
 Hire Purchase Co. Ltd. v. Richans (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 387 262 
 
 Hirst in re (1892) . W. N. 177 315 
 
 Hirst ex parte, re Wherly. See Wherly in re, ex parte Hirst. 
 
l sx iy TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAtlK 
 
 Hirth in re, ex parte Trustee (1899), 1 Q. B. 612, 621; 68 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 287, 293; 80 L. T. 63; 47 W. R. 243; 15 T. L. R. 153; 
 
 ' 6 Man. 10 .'. 91, 95, 101, 103, 107, 108, 351 
 
 Hoare in re, ex parte Ashworth <1874), L. R. 18 Bq. 705; 43 
 
 L. J. Bank. 143; 30 L. T. 906; 22 W. R. 905... 79, 407, 408, 
 
 409, 441, 541 
 Hoare v. The Oriental Bank Corp. (1877), 2 A. C. 589, 599; 37 
 
 L. T. 173; 12 W. R. 757 468 
 
 Hobbins in re, ex parte O. R. (1899), 6 Mans. 212 173, 175 
 
 Hobbs in re and ex parte (1892), 66 L. T. 144 584 652 
 
 Hobbs ex parte, in re Bates. See Bates in re, ex parte Hobbs. 
 Hobbs ex parte, in re Fitzgerald. See Fitzgerald, in re ex parte 
 
 Hobbs. 
 Hobbs v. Kennabeck Consolidated Silver Mines Ltd. (1918), 14 
 
 O. W,. N. 358 562 
 
 Hobbs v. Ontario Loan and Debenture Co. (1890), 18 S. C. R. 
 
 483 478 
 
 Hobbs ex parte, re Sedgwick. See Sedgwick in re, ex parte 
 
 Hobbs. 
 Hodge v. McLean and Union Bank of Canada (1919), 12 S. L. R. 
 
 298 64 
 
 Hodges in re (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 204; 42 L. J. Bank. 56 608 
 
 Hodge's in re, ex parte Mathews (1896), 3 Mans. 329 79, 128, 139 
 
 Hodges, Bartley v. See Bartley v. Hodges. 
 
 Hodges Distilling Co. in re, Maude ex parte (1871), 6 Ch. 51 
 
 55 394 
 
 Hodgins, Porterfields v. See Porterfields v. Hodgins. 
 
 Hodgkin ex parte, in re Softly. See Softly in re, ex parte 
 
 Hodgkin. 
 Hodgson in re, ex parte Brett (1875), 1 Ch. D. 150; 45 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 17; 33 L. T. 711; 24 W. R. 101 617, 618 
 
 Hodgson in re, ex parte Oliver (1850), 4 De G. & S. 354 99, 416 
 
 Hodgson in re, Hodgson v. Fox (1878), 9 Ch. D. 673 445 
 
 Hodgson v. Sidney (1866), L. R. 1 Ex. ch. 313; 35 L. J. Ex. 182; 
 
 14 W. R. 923 298 
 
 Hodgson, Smith v. See Smith v. Hodgson. 
 
 Hoey ex parte and in re (1919), 88 L. J. K. B. 273 422 
 
 Hoffman re, ex parte C'arr (1879), 11 Ch. D. 62; 48 L. J. Bank. 
 
 69; 40 L. T. 299 , 442 
 
 Hogan and Hughes in re Jackson. See Jackson in re, ex parte 
 
 Hogan and Hughes. 
 
 Hogg v. Bridges (1818), 8 Taunt. 200 581 
 
 Holbrook v. Coney (1861), 25 111. 543 198 
 
 Holden in re, ex parte O. R. (1887). 20 Q. B. D. 43; 57 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 47; 58 L. T. 118; 36 W. R. 189 201, 332, 371 
 
 Holden in re, ex parte Roberts (1864), 10 Jur. N. S. 28 259 
 
 Holder 'ex parte (1834) , 1 M. & A. 518 550 
 
 Holdsworth in re, ex parte North Kent Bank (1878), 9 Ch. D. 
 
 333; 47 L. J. Bank 119; 27 W. R. 158; 39 L. T. 379 149 
 
 Hole v. Escott (1838), 4 Mg. & C. 187; 2 Keen. 444 290 
 
 Holland ex parte, re Parker & Young (1894), 71 L. T. 435; 43 
 
 W. R. 16 ; 1 Mans. 509 455 
 
 Holland ex parte, in re Rogers. See Rogers in re, ex parte 
 
 Holland. 
 Holland, Cameron v. See Cameron v. Holland. 
 Holland, Court v. See Court v. Holland. 
 Holland, Mitchell v. See Mitchell v. Holland. 
 
 Holland v. Palmer (1797), 1 B. & P. 95 217 
 
 Holland, Robertson v. See Robertson v. Holland. 
 
 Holland, Stock v. See Stock v. Holland. 
 
 Hollander ex parte, in re Cox. See Cox in re, ex parte Hoi- ' 
 
 lander. 
 Holliday, Watson v. See Watson v. Holliday. 
 
 Hollinshead v. Hazleton (1916), A. C. 428 69,313 
 
 Hollingshead in re, ex parte Heapy (1888), 58 L. J. Q. B. 297; 
 
 60 L. T. 273; 37 W. R. 415; 6 Mor. 66 96, 175 
 
 Hollingshead, Wright, v. See Wright v. Hollingshead. 
 
TABLE OF CASES. J X XV 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Hollingworth, Tooke v. See Tooke v. Hollingworth. 
 
 Holloway v. York (1877), 25 W. R. 627 303 
 
 Holly, Campbell v. See Campbell v. Holly. 
 
 Hollyford Copper Mining Co. in re (1869), L. R. 5 Ch. 93. 586 
 
 Holme, Higinbotham v. See Higinbotham v. Holme. 
 
 Holmes ex parte, in re Rushford. See Rushford in re, ex parte 
 
 Holmes. 
 Holmes, Beattie v. See Beattie v. Holmes. 
 
 Holmes v. Penny (1856), 3 K. & J. 90; 26 L. J. Ch. 179 108 
 
 Holroyd v. Gwynne (1809), 2 Taunt 176; 1 Rose 113 115 
 
 Holroyd v. Marshall (1862), H. L. C. 10; 191; 7 L. T. 172; 9 
 
 Jur. N. S. 213 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 193 83, 536 
 
 Holroyd v. Whitehead (1814), 3 Camp. 530 113 
 
 Holt in re (1867), 13 Gr. 568 528 
 
 Holt in re, ex parte Hutchinson (1882), 7 L. T. 483 564 
 
 Holt ex parte, in re Daintrey. See In re Daintrey, ex parte 
 
 Holt. 
 Holthauson ex parte, in re Scheibler. See Scheibler in re, ex 
 
 parte Holthauson. 
 Honey ex parte, in re Jeffrey. See Jeffrey in re, ex parte 
 
 Honey. 
 
 Honsinger v. Kuntz (1909), 14 O. W. R. 233 366, 370 
 
 Hood v. Dodds (1873), 19 Gr. 639, 644 178, 519 
 
 Hood v. Newby (1882), 21 Ch. D. 605; 52 L. J. Ch. 204; 47 L. 
 
 T 721 128 363 
 
 Hooley in re, ex parte (1899) , 2 Q. B. 579; 80 L. f. 495; 6 Man! 
 
 176 571, 636 
 
 Hooley in re, Rueker's Case (1898), 79 L. T. 306; 5 Mans. 331. 496 
 Hooper, Beer v. See Beer v. Hooper. 
 Hooson, Lister v. See Lister v. Hooson. 
 
 Hope v. Grant (1890), 20 O. R. 623 346 
 
 Hope, Johnson v. See Johnson v. Hope. 
 
 Hope v. May (1897), 24 O. A. R. 16 40, 46. 349 
 
 Hope v. Meek (1855), 10 Ex. 829; 25 L J. Ex. 11 362 
 
 Hope, Young v. See Young v. Hope. 
 
 Hopkinson v. Foster (1874). L. R. 19 Eq. 74; 23 W. R. 301 365 
 
 Hopkinson v. Lovering (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 92; 52 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 391; 47 L. T. 519 484 
 
 Horan, McDonald v. See McDonald v. Horan. 
 Horlock, Sweetapple v. See Sweetapple v. Horlock. 
 
 Hornblower v: Proud, 2 B. & Aid. 327 63 
 
 Hornby v. Oxley. See Re Oxley, Hornby v. Oxley. 
 
 Home v. Gait (1908), 1 A. L. R. 392, 398 45 
 
 Hornstedt, Philps v. See Philps v. Hornstedt. 
 
 Horsley in re. ex parte Orde. L. R. 6 Ch. 881; 40 L. J. Bank. 60. 406 
 
 Hosack v. Robins (1918) . 2 Ch. 339 374 
 
 Hosking in re (1912), 106 L. T. 640 395 
 
 Hoskins and Hawtry in re (1877). 1 O. A. R. 379 480. 482 
 
 Houghton in re, ex parte Taylor (1857), 26 L. J. Bank. 58 ... 425 
 
 Hovey, Whiting v. See Whiting v. Hovey. 
 
 Howard v. Crowther (1841), 8 M. & W. 605; 5 Jur. 914 297 
 
 Howard v. Panshawe (1895), 2 Ch. 589; 64 L. J. Ch. 666; 73 L. 
 
 T, 77 -, 70 
 
 Howard in re, ex parte Stallard (1868), L. R. 3 Ch. 408.618. 625. 626 
 Howe re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 482; 20 O. W. N. 244 (Holmested, R ) 220 
 Howe in re. ex parte Brett (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 838; 40 L. j. 
 
 Bank. 54 79 
 
 Howe in re, ex parte Edwards (1885), 54 L. J. Q. B. 447; 2 Mor. 
 
 203 573 
 
 Howe in Te, ex parte Parker (1887). 12 P. R. 351 390 
 
 Howe ex parte, Parker re. See Parker in re, ex parte Howe. 
 
 Howe Machine Co., Fontaine's Case (1889), 41 Ch. D. 118 490 
 
 Howell in re. ex parte Mandelberg & Co. (1895), 1 Q. B. 844; 
 
 64 L. J. Q. B. 454; 72 L. T. 472; 2 Mans. 192 484 
 
 Howell in re (1915), 84 L. J. K. B. 1399; 1 H. B. R. 173 488 
 
] xxv i TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Howes in re, ex parte White (1902), 2 K. B. 290; 71 L. J. K. B. 
 
 705; 9 Man. 705 626 
 
 Howie, Douglas v. See Douglas v. Howie. 
 Hubley, Archibald v. See Archibald v. Hubley. 
 
 Hudson v. Granger (1821), 5 B. & A. 27 85 
 
 Hudspith, Vint v. See Vint v. Hudspith. 
 
 Huggins ex parte, in re (1882), L. R. 21 Ch. D. 85; 51 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 935; 30 W. R. 878; 47 L. T. 559 69 
 
 Hughes in re (1893) 4 R. 368; (1893), 1 Q. B. 595; 62 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 358; 68 L. T. 629; 41 W. R. 466; 10 Mor. 91 94 
 
 Hughes ex parte, in re Brown. See Brown in re, ex parte 
 
 Hughes. 
 Hughes ex parte, re Gurney. See Gurney in re, ex parte 
 
 Hughes. 
 Hulton in re, ex parte Manchester & County Bank (1891), 39 
 
 W. R. 303 ; 8 Mor. 69 284 
 
 Humber (Portugal) Ltd., Greenwood v. See Greenwood v. 
 
 Humber (Portugal) Ltd. 
 Humber Ironworks & Shipbuilding Co., Warrant Finance Co. in 
 
 re, 4 Ch. 643 439 
 
 Hume, McGregor v. See McGregor v. Hume. 
 Humphris, Rex v. See Rex v. Humphris. 
 Humphrey, Brunsden v. See Brunsden v. Humphrey. 
 Humphreys, Jones v. See Jones v. Humphreys. 
 
 Hunt in re. ex parte (1872), L. R. 8 Ch. 234; 28 L. T. 3 57S 
 
 Hunt v. Fripp (1898), 1 Ch. 675; 67 L. J. Ch. 377; 77 L. T. 
 
 516; 5 Man. 105; 46 W. R. 125 373, 374 
 
 Hunt v. Long (1916), 35 O. L. R. 502 366 
 
 Hunt, White v. See White v. Hunt. 
 
 Hunter ex parte (1801), 6 Ves. 94 440 
 
 Hunter, Bulmer v. See Bulmer v. Hunter. 
 
 Hunter v. Greensill (1872), 42 L. J. C. P. 55; L. R. 8 C. P. 
 
 24; 27 L. T. 827 390,394 
 
 Hunter v. Potts (1791), 4 T. R. 182; affd. sub. nom. Phillips 
 
 v. Hunter (1795), 2 H. Bl. 402 71, 74, 354 
 
 Hunter. Reinhardt v. See Reinhardt v. Hunter. 
 
 Hunting, New, Prance & Garrard's Trustee. See New, Prance 
 
 & Garrard's Trustee v. Hunting. 
 Huntley in re, ex parte Goldstein (1917), 87 L. J. K. B. 590; 
 
 (1917), H. B. R. 270, 209 490,586,662 
 
 Hunton, Preston v. See Preston v. Hunton. 
 
 Hurlbatt ex parte, re Ridgeway. See Ridgeway in re, ex parte 
 
 Hurlbatt. 
 
 Hurst in re (1876), 6 U. C. P. R. 329 346. 349,350 
 
 Hurst in re (1871), 31 U. C. Q. B. 116 439 
 
 Husband in re, ex parte Dawes L. R. (1875), 19 Eq. 438; 44 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 62; 32 L. T. 103; 23 W. R. 384 . 119, 362 
 
 Hutchins v. Cohen (1869), 14 L. C. J. 235 139 
 
 Hutchins v. Cohen (1870) , 15 L. C. J. 235 300 
 
 Hutchinson in re, ex parte Ball (1887), 35 W. R. 264; W. N. 
 
 (1887), p. 21 352 
 
 Hutchinson in re, ex parte Plowden (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 515; 
 
 55 L. J. Q. B. 582; 54 L. T. 302; 34 W. R. 475; 3 Mor. 19.. 188 
 Hutchinson ex parte, in re Holt. See Holt in re, ex parte 
 
 Hutchinson. 
 Hutchinson, Booth v. See Booth v. Hutchinson. 
 Hutchinson, Smith v. See Smith v. Hutchinson. 
 Hutton in re, ex parte Benwell (1884), 14 Q. B. D 301; 54 L. 
 
 J. Q. B. 53; 51 L. T. 677 296 
 
 Hutton v. Justin (1901), 22 C. L. T. 23; (1902), 1 O. W. R. 
 
 64; 2 O. L. R. 713 ; 258 
 
 Hutton, King v. See King v. Hutton. 
 
 Hyams v. Stuart King (1908), 2 K. B. 696; 77 L. J. K. B. 794; 
 
 99 L. T. 424 417 
 
 Hyman v. Cuthbertson (1886), 10 O. R. 443 350 
 
TABLE OB' CASES. Lxxvii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Ibbetson ex parte, in re Moore. See Moore in re, ex parte 
 Ibbetson. „„„ 
 
 Iliff in re. 51 W. R. 80 3*9 
 
 Imperial Bank v. McLellan (1919) , 12 S. L. R. 415 330 
 
 Imperial Bank of Canada v. Barber (1921), 1 C. B. R. 485; 20 
 
 O. W. N. 282 (Middleton, J.) 256, 260, 396, 411. 568 
 
 Imperial Continental Water Corp. in re (1886), 33 Ch. D. 314; 
 
 56 L. J. Ch. 189; 35 L. T. 47 510 
 
 Imperial Hotel Co., Linton v. See Linton v. Imperial Hotel 
 
 Co. 
 Imperial Loan v. Stone (1892), 1 Q. B. 599; 61 L. J. Q. B. 449; 
 
 66 L. T. 556 59 
 
 Ince-Hall Rolling Mills v. Douglas Forge Co. (1882), 8 Q. B. 
 
 D. 179; 30 W. R. 945 262, 324 
 
 Income Tax Commissioners, Laycock v. See Laycock m re. 
 Industrial Finance v. Lind in re, Lind. See Lind, Industrial 
 Finance v. 
 
 Inksons Trusts (1855), 21 Beav. 310 290 
 
 Institute of Patent Agents v. Lockwood (1894), A. C. 347 572 
 
 International Assets Co. Ltd. ex parte, re Van Laun. See Van 
 
 Laun in re, ex parte International Assets Co. 
 International Contract Co. in re Hughes Claim (1872), 13 Bq. 
 
 623 «9 
 
 International Harvester Co. of Canada, Limited v. Zarbok 
 
 (1918), 3 W. W. R. 38; 11 S. L. R. 354 537 
 
 • International Pulp and Paper Co. in re (1876), 3 Ch. D. 594 560 
 
 International Steel Co., Baxter v. See Baxter v. International 
 
 Steel Co. 
 " Iona," The, White & Company v. See White & Co. v. The 
 
 " Iona." 
 Irwell India Rubber Co., Gorringe v. See Gorringe v. Irwell 
 
 India Rubber Co. 
 Irwin, Dunn v. See Dunn v. Irwin. 
 Isaac ex parte, in re De Vecchi. See De Vecchi in re, ex parte 
 
 Isaac. 
 Isaacs, Colly er v. See Collyer v. Isaacs. 
 
 Isaacs v. Royal Insurance Co. (1870), L. R. 5 Ex. 296 119 
 
 Isle, Dawson v. See Dawson v. Isle. 
 
 Izard ex parte, in re Vanderhage. See Vanderhage in re, ex 
 
 parte Izard. 
 Izod in re, ex parte O. R. (1898), 1 Q. B. 241; 67 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 Ill; 77 L. T. 640; 4 Mans. 343 542, 543,592 
 
 Jack v. Kipping (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 113; 51 L. J. Q. B. 463; 
 
 46 L. T. 169 321, 418,536 
 
 Jackman v. Mitchell (1807), 13 Ves. 581 217 
 
 Jackson in re, ex parte Hogan and Hughes (1891), 8 Mor. 172. 147 
 Jackson in re. ex parte Union Bank of Manchester (1871), L. R. 
 
 12 Eq. 354; 40 L. J. Bank. 57; 24 L. T. 951; 19 W. R. 872. .70, 306 
 Jackson ex parte, in re Alderson. See In re Alderson, ex parte 
 
 Jackson. 
 Jackson ex parte, in re Bowes. See In re Bowes, ex parte Jack- 
 son. 
 Jackson ex parte, in re Carne. See In re Carne, ex parte Jack- 
 son. 
 
 Jackson v. Cannon, 23 C. L. T. 300; (1902), 10 B. C. R. 73 264 
 
 Jackson, Crombie v. See Crombie v. Jackson. 
 
 Jackson, Lai Hop v. See Lai Hop v. Jackson. 
 
 Jackson v. North Eastern Railway (1877), 5 Ch. D. 844; 46 
 
 L. J. Ch. 723; 36 L. T. 779; 25 W. R. 518 266, 299 
 
 Jackson, Sharp v. See Sharp v. Jackson 
 
 Jackson, Bassford & Co. in re (1906), 2 Ch. 467; 75 L. J. Ch. 
 
 697; 13 Mans. 306 103, 349, 853 
 
 Jacobs in re, ex parte (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 211; 44 L. J. Bank. 
 
 34; 31 L. T. 745; 23 W. R. 251 226 
 
 Jacobs ex parte, in re Carter. See In re Carter, ex parte Jacobs. 
 Jagger, Wood v. See Wood v. Jagger. 
 
Ixxviii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Jakeman v. Cook (1878), 4 Ex. D. 26; 41 L. J. Ex. 165; 27 W. R. 
 yj\ 539 
 
 James in re (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 332; Hi,. 'J.Q.B. 75; 50 L'.T. 
 
 471 60 
 
 James in re and ex parte (1891), 8 Mor. 19 524 
 
 James ex parte (1803), 8 Ves. 337 258 
 
 James ex parte, in re Condon. See In re Condon, ex parte James. 
 James ex parte, in re O'Reardon. See O'Reardon in re, ex parte 
 
 Ththss 
 
 James v. Emerson (1837), 2 M. & W. 623 302 
 
 James, Kerry v. See Kerry v. James. 
 
 Jameson ex parte, in re Balbirmie. See In re Balbirmie, ex parte 
 
 Jameson. 
 Jameson v. Brick and Stone Co. (1878), 4 Q. B. D. 208; 48 L.. J. 
 
 Q. B. 249; 39 L. T. 594; 27 W. R. 221 298 
 
 Jameson, Smith, v. See Smith v. Jameson. 
 
 Jameson, Waterhouse v. See Waterhouse v. Jameson. 
 
 Jameson & Sandys in re, ex parte Cresswell & Jameson (1891), 
 
 8 Mor. 278 395, 657 
 
 Jamfeson v. Kerr (1872), 6 P. R. 3 564 
 
 Jamieson in re, ex parte Pannell (1889), 60 L. T. 159; 37 W. R. 
 
 464; 6 Mor. 24 294 
 
 Janson, Cracknall v. See Cracknall v. Janson. 
 
 Jarmain v. Chatterton (1882), 20 Ch. D. 493; 51 L. J. Ch. 471.. 498 
 Jay ex parte, in re Harrison. See Harrison in re, ex parte Jay. 
 Jaynes ex parte, in re Dowson. See Dowson in re, ex parte 
 
 Jaynes. 
 Jeavons in re, ex parte Brown (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 304; 43 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 105; 22 W. R. 602; 30 L. T. 108 591, 592 
 
 Jeavons in re, ex parte MacKay (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 643; 42 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 68; 28 L. T. 828; 21 W. R. 664 43, 101, 358, 590, 591 
 
 Jecks in re, ex parte Bailey (1871), L. R. 13 Eq. 314; 41 L. J. 
 
 Bank 632 
 
 Jeffrey in re, ex parte Honey (1871), L. R. 7 Ch. 178; 41 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 9 ; 25 L. T. 729 446, 448 
 
 Jeffrey ex parte, in re Tetley. See Tetley in re, ex parte Jeffrey. 
 
 Jenkins in re, ex parte (1891) , 8 Mor. 36 528 
 
 Jenkins in re, ex parte Trustee (1904), 90 L. T. 65; 20 T. L. R. 
 
 187 189 
 
 Jenkins ex parte, in re Glanville. See Glanville in re, ex parte 
 
 Jenkins 253 
 
 Jenkins v. Fereday (1872), L. R. 7 C. P.- 358; 41 L. J. C. P. 152; 
 
 27 L. T. 137 ^ 538 
 
 Jenks ex parte, in re Wallis. See Wallis in re, ex parte Jenks. 
 
 Jenks v. Doran (1880), 5 O. A. R. 558 143, 158 
 
 Jennings V. Mather (1901), 1 K. B. 102; (1902), 1 K. B. 1; 70 
 
 L. J. K. B. 1032; 85 L. T. 396; 50 W. R. 52; 8 Man. 329.-283, 295 
 Jephson, in re, McDonagh v. See In re McDonagh v. Jephson. 
 Jerningham in re and ex parte (1878), 9 Ch. D. 466; 47 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 115; 39 L. T. 651; 27 W. R. 157 605 
 
 Jeyes, Gibson v. See Gibson v. Jeyes. 
 
 Johnson in re, ex parte (1883), 25 Ch. D. 112; 53 L. J. Ch. 309.. 606 
 
 Johnson. 
 
 •Johnson in re, ex parte Ellis (1914), 111 L. T. 165 145 
 
 Johnson in re, Golden v. Gillam (1881), 20 Ch. D. 389; 51 L. J. 
 
 • Ch. 154; 46 L. T. 222 108 
 
 Johnson in re, ex parte Matthews & Wilkinson (1904), 1 K. B. 
 
 134; 73 L. J. K. B. 220; 90 L. T. 61; 52 W. R. 304; 11 Man. 
 
 14 43, 287 
 
 Johnson in re, ex, parte Wright (1908), 99 L. T. 305; 52 Sol. J. 
 
 622 92, 302 
 
 Johnson, Bailey v. See Bailey v. Johnson. 
 
 Johnson, Barker v. See Barker v. Johnson. 
 
 Johnson, Bird v. See Bird v. Johnson. 
 
 Johnson ex parte, in re Chapman. See In re Chapman, ex parte 
 
 Johnson v. Hope (1889), 17 O. A. R. 10 343, 345 
 
 Johnson v. Osenton (1869), L. R. 4 Ex. 107, 114, 115 91, 95, 175 
 
TABLE OF CASES. Jxxix 
 
 i TAGE 
 
 Johnson v. SmJley (1853), 17 Beav. 223; 22 L. J. Ch. 826 ,. 290 
 
 Johnson, Standard v. See Standard v. Johnson. 
 
 Johnson, Standard Bank. of Canada v. See Standard Bank of 
 
 Canada v. Johnson. 
 Johnston in re and ex parte (1851), 4 De G. & S. 25; 20 L. J. 
 
 Bank 6 529 
 
 Johnston, Armstrong v. See Armstrong v. Johnston. 
 
 Johnston v. Barker (1869 ) , 20 U. C. C. P. 228 234, 259 
 
 Johnston v. Dulmage (1899), 30 0. R. 233 263, 397 
 
 Johnston, Grundy v. See Grundy v. Johnston. 
 
 Johnston v. Wade (1908), 17 O. L. R. 372; 11 O. W. R. 598; 12 
 
 O. W. R. 951 46 
 
 Jones in re (1868), 4 U. C. P. R. 317. .290, 354, 494, 524, 528, 529, 594 
 Jones in re, ex parte (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 589; 38 W. R. 429; on 
 
 appeal, 25 Q. B. D. 285; 38 W. R. 609; 59 L. J. Q. B. 331; 
 
 62 L. T. 370; 7 Mor. Ill 524 
 
 Jones in re, ex parte Consolidated Bank (1878), 2 O. A. R. 626. . 438 
 Jones in re, ex parte Constable, in re Barker (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 
 
 285; 59 L. J. Q. B. 331; 7 Mor. Ill; 62 L. T. 370 521 
 
 Jones in re, ex parte Goatley (1911), 56 S. J. 17 263, 398, 411, 413 
 
 Jones in re Grissell (1879), 12 Ch. D. 484, 488; 48 L. J. Bank. 
 
 109 56, 58 
 
 Jones in re, ex parte Lloyd (1891), 2 Q. B. 231; 60 L. J. Q.-B. 
 
 751; 64 L. T. 804; 40 W. R. 95; 8 Mor. 210 313, 651 
 
 Jones in re, ex parte Nichols (1883), 22 Ch. D. 782, 786; 52 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 635; 48 L. T. 492; 31 W. R. 661 44, 83, 282 
 
 Jones ex parte, in re J. (1881), 18 Ch. D. 109; 50 L. J; Ch. 673; 
 
 45 L. T. 193; 29 W. R. 747 57 
 
 Jones v. Barker (1909), 1 Ch. 321; 78 L. J. Ch. 167 40, 193 
 
 Jones v. Des Birsay Trin. T. (1871), Stephens Dig. N. B. R. 413. 294 
 Jones v. Gordon (1877), 2 A. C. 616; 47 L. J. Bank. 1; 37 L. T. 
 
 477 .. . .' 427 
 
 Jones v. Harber (1870), L. R. 6 Q. B. 77; 40 L. J. Q. B. 59; 24 
 
 L. T. 806 103 
 
 Jones, Hegan v. See Hegan v. Jones. 
 
 Jones v. Humphreys (1902), 1 K. B. 10; 71 L. J. K. B. 23; 85 L. T. 
 
 488; 50 W. R. 191 338 
 
 Jones v. Kinney (1884), ll S. C. R. 708 349 
 
 Jones, Peat v. See Peat v. Jones. 
 Jones, Slater v. See Slater v. Jones. 
 • Jones, Spooner v. See Spooner v. Jones. 
 Jones, Thordarson v. See Thordarson v. Jones. 
 Jones Bros, in re, ex parte Associated Newspaper Co. (1912), 
 
 3 K. B. 234; 81 L". J. K. B. 1178; 107 L. T. 236; 56 Sol. J. 
 
 751; 19 Man. 349 .* 98, 129 
 
 Jones & Moore Elec. Co. in re, Jones & Moore's Case (1908), 18 
 
 M. L.| R. 549 ; 10 W. L. R. 210 323 
 
 Jordan in re, ex parte Symons (1880), 14 Ch. D. 693; 28 W. R. - 
 
 803; 43 L. T. 106 351 
 
 Joshua Stubbs Ltd. in re (1891) , 1 Ch. 475 162 
 
 Joslin, Coates v. See Coates v. Joslin. 
 Josolyne, Drew v. See Drew v. Josolyne. 
 
 Jowitt & Sons v. Union Cold Storage (1913), 3 K. B. 1 86 
 
 Joyner ex parte, 2 M. & A. 1 263 
 
 Jubb in re, ex parte Burman & Greenwood (1897), 1 Q. B. 641; , 
 
 66 L. T. 329; 45 W. R. 479; 4 Man. 30 137, 173 
 
 Juby, Reg. v. See Reg. v. Juby. 
 
 Judge Northallerton Co. Court, Skinner v. See Skinner v. 
 
 Northallerton County Court Judge. 
 Judge of Surrey Co. Court, Reg. v. See Reg. v. Judge of Surrey 
 
 Co. Court. 
 Juggins, Rainbow v. See Rainbow v. Juggins. 
 Jukes in re, ex parte O. R. (1902), 2 K. B. 58; 71 L. J. K. B. 
 
 710; 86 L. T. 456; 50 "W. R. 560; 9 Man. 249. .92. 102, 359, 363, 365 
 
 Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford (1880), 5. A. C. 214, 241 137 
 
 Julius, Wetherell v. See Wetherell v. Julius. 
 Justin, Hutton v. See Hutton v. Justin. 
 
] xxs TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Kahn, Greener v. See Greener v. Kahn. 
 Kahnert, Langley v. See Langley v. Kahnert. 
 
 Kalus v. Hergert. (1876), 1 0. A. R. 75 • 105, 350 
 
 Kase ex parte, 9 Mor. 269 471 
 
 Kearley ex parte in re Clark. See In re Clark, ex parte Kearley. 
 Kearly and Clayton's Contract in re (1878), 7 Ch. D. 615; 47 
 
 L. J. Ch. 494; 38 L. T. 92; 26 W. R. 324 214 
 
 Kearsley ex parte, in re Genese. See Genese in re, ex parte 
 
 Kearsley. 
 
 Keays in re and ex parte (1891) , 9 Mor. 18 528 
 
 Keays v. Brown (1875) , 22 Gr. 10 341 
 
 Keely in re, ex parte Hawker (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 214; 41 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 34; 26 L. T. 54; 20 W. R. 322 103 
 
 Keers, Adams v. See Adams v. Keers. 
 
 Keet in re, ex parte O. R. (1905), 2 K. B. 666; 74 L. J. K. B. 694; 
 
 93 L. T. 259; 54 W. R. 20; 12 Man. 235 218, 542, 545 
 
 Keighley ex parte, in re Wike. See Wike in re, ex parte 
 
 Keighley. 
 Kekewich, Stuckley v.. in re Stuckley. See Stuckley in re, 
 
 Stuckley v. Kekewich. 
 
 Kellaway v. Bury (1892), 66 L. T. 599 297 
 
 Kellock's Case (1868), L. R. 3 Ch. 769 440 
 
 Kelly in re, ex parte Sturdee (1897), 17 C. L. T. Occ. U. 65 398 
 
 Kelly ex parte, in re Smith, Fleming & Co. See Smith, Fleming 
 
 & Co. in re, ex parte Kelly. 
 Kelly, Coats v. See Coates v. Kelly. 
 
 Kemp ex parte, in re Russel. See Russel in re, ex parte Kemp. 
 Kempster, Madden v. See Madden v. Kempster. 
 Kennabeck Consolidated Silver Mines Ltd., Hobbs v. See Hobbs 
 
 t. Kennabeck Consolidated Silver Mines Ltd. 
 Kennedy in re, Mason v. Higgins (1875), 36 TJ. C. Q. B. 471. .480. 564 
 
 Kennedy v. Macdonell (1901). 1 O. L. R. 250 482, 483 
 
 Kensington ex parte (1808) , 14 Ves. 447 468 
 
 Kent v. La Communante des Soeurs de Charite de la Providence 
 
 (1903), A. C. 220; 72 L. J. P. C. 61 89, 605 
 
 Kent, Communante des Soeurs v. See Communante des Soeurs 
 
 v. Kent. • 
 
 Kent Co.. Gas Light and Coke Co. (1913), 1 Ch. 92; 82 L. J. Ch. 
 
 28; 107 L. T. 641; 57 S. J. 112; 19 Mans. 358 449 
 
 Kent Co. Gas Co. in re (1909), 2 Ch. 195; 78 L. J. Ch. 625; 100 
 
 L. T. 983; 16 Man. 185 374 
 
 Kent, Vanier v. See Vanier v. Kent. 
 
 Ker in re, ex parte Bagshaw (1879), 13 Ch. D. 304; 41 L. T. 743; 
 
 28 W. R. 403 • 407, 444 
 
 Kernot, Cole v. See Cole v. Kernot. 
 Kerr, Cameron v. See Cameron v. Kerr. 
 
 Kerr v. Hastings (1875), 25 U. C. C. P. 429 483 
 
 Kerr, Henderson v. See Henderson v. Kerr. 
 
 Kerr, Jamieson v. See Jamieson v.'Kerr. 
 
 Kerr v. Kerr (1897), 2 Q. B. 439; 77 L. T 29; 66 L. J. Q. B. 838; 
 
 46 W. R. 46; 4 Mans. 207 420 
 
 Kerry v. James (1894), 21 O. A. R. 338 40, 46, 348, 349 
 
 Ketcheson and Canadian Nor. Ont. R W. Co. in re (1913), 25 
 
 O. W. R. 252; 5 O. W. N. 271, 350; 13 D. L. R. 854 594 
 
 Kettlewell v. Watson (1884) , 26 Ch. D 501 86 
 
 Kevan v. Crawford (1877), 6 Ch. D. 29; 46 L. J. Ch. 729; 37 
 
 L. T. 322; 26 W. R. 49 108 
 
 Kevan ex parte, in re Crawford. See In re Crawford, ex parte 
 
 Kevan. 
 Key & Sons Limited in re (1902) 1 Ch. 467; 71 L. J. Ch. 254; 
 
 50 W. R. 234; 86 L. T. 374; 9 Mans. 181 ' 306 
 
 Key v. Shaw (1832) , 8 Bing. 320 116 
 
 Keyes v. Hanington (1913), 13 E. L. R. 327; 13 D. L. R. 139; 
 
 42 N. B. R. 190 462 
 
 Keyes v. Kirkpatrick (1890), 19 O. R. 572 378 
 
 Keyworth in re. ex parte Banner (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 379; 43 
 
 L. J. K. B. 102; 30 L. T. N. S. 620 69, 82 
 
TABLE OF CXSEfi. Jxxxi 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Kibble ex parte, in re Haynes. See Haynes in re, ex parte 
 
 Kibble. 
 Kibble ex parte, in re Onslow. See Onslow in re, ex parte 
 Kibble. 
 
 Kidd in re, ex parte (1861) , 7 Jur. (N.S.) 613 429 
 
 Kidd ex parte, in re Ruthen. See Ruthen in re, ex parte Kidd. 
 Kidderminster Overseers, Richards v. See. Richards v. Kidder- 
 minster Overseers. 
 
 Killam in re (1874) , 14 C. L. J. N. S. 242 24 
 
 Kilner ex parte, in re Barker. See In re Barker, ex parte Kilner. 
 Kilner ex parte, in re Bryant. See Bryant in re ex parte Kilner. 
 Kimber ex parte, in re Thrift. See Thrift in re, ex parte Kimber. 
 
 King, in re arid ex parte (187G), 2 Ch. 256 104 
 
 King in re, ex parte Purber (1881), 17 Ch. D. .191; 44 L. T. 319; 
 
 29 W. R. 524 : ; 131 
 
 King in re, ex parte Mesham (1885), 2 Mor. 119 .> 408 
 
 King ex parte, in re Davies. See In re Davies, ex parte King. 
 
 King, Barnett v. See Barnett v.. King. 
 
 King v. Henderson (1898), App. Cas. 720; 67 L. J. P. C. 134; 
 
 79 L. T. 37; 47 W. R. 157; 5 Mans. 308 132, 138, 139 
 
 King v. Hutton (1900), 2 Q. B. 504; 69 L. J. Q. B. 786; 83 L. T. 
 
 68 ; 7 Man. 393 284 
 
 King, McMaster v. See McMaster v. King. 
 
 King v. Smith (1869) , 19 U. C. C. P. 319 534 
 
 King & Beesley in re, ex parte (1895), 1 Q. B. 189; 64 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 126; 71 L. T. 580; 43 W. R. 78; 11 T. L. R. 3; 1 Man. 505... 131 
 Kingscote ex parte, in re Tillett. See Tillett in re, ex parte 
 Kingscote. 
 
 Kingsmill v. Kingsmill (1917), 41 O. L. R. 238 308 
 
 Kinney v. Dudman (1876), 2 Russ. & Ches. 19; 2 Cart. 412 24 
 
 Kinney, Jones v. See.Jones v. Kinney. 
 
 Kinsman v. Parker (1919), 52 N. S. R. 553; 1 C. B. R. 161. .46, 158 
 
 Kin Tye Loong v. Seth et al. (1920), B. & C. R. 89; 2 W. W. R.. 
 
 4^0 392 
 
 Kipping, Jack v. See Jack v. Kipping. 
 
 Kirby ex parte (1829), M. & M. 225 507 
 
 Kirby ex parte, in re Alderson. See Alderson in re, ex parte 
 
 Kirby. 
 Kirk ex parte, in re Dashwood. See Dashwood in re, ex parte 
 Kirk. 
 
 Kirkman v. Shawcross (1794), 6 T. R. 14 85 
 
 Kirkpatrick, Praser v. See Praser v. Kirkpatrick. 
 
 Kirkpatrick, Keyes v. See Keyes v. Kirkpatrick. 
 
 Kirkwood ex parte, in re Mason. See Mason in re, ex parte 
 
 Kirkwood. 
 Kit Hill Tunnel Co. in re, ex parte Williams (1881), 16 Ch. D. 
 
 590; 50 L. J. Ch. 303; 29 W. R. 419; 44 L. T. 336. . .432, 439, 440 
 Kitchen in re. ex parte Young, 188; (1881), 17 Ch. D. 668; 50 
 
 L. J. Ch. 824; 45 L. T. 90 426 
 
 Kitching.v. Hicks (1884). 6 O. R. 739 40, 45, 46, 81, 337, 366 
 
 Kitson in re, ex parte Sugden & Son Ltd. (1911), 2 K. B. 109; 
 
 80 L. J. K. B. 1147; 18 Man. 224; 55 Sol. J. 443 395 
 
 Kitson v. Hardwick (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 473; 26 L. T. 846. 
 
 256, 258, 260 
 Kissock. Hall v. See Hall v. Kissock. 
 Kittoe, Rainbow v. See Rainbow v. Kittoe. 
 
 Klauber v. Weill (1901), 17 T. L. R. 344. : 390 
 
 Kloepfer, Gardner v. See Gardner v. Kloepfer. 
 "Hoenfer. Warnock v. See Warnock v. Kloepfer. 
 
 Knight in re, ex parte Smith (1884), 1 Mor. 74 409 
 
 Knight, in re, ex parte Voisev (1882), 21 Ch D. 442; 52 L. J. Ch. 
 
 121; 47 L. T. 362; 31 W. R. 19 101 
 
 Knight ex parte, 2 M. & A. 545 407 
 
 Knight ex parte, in re Pirbank. See Pirbank in re, ex parte 
 Knight. 
 
\xx,\'\i TABLE OF CASUS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Knight v. Browne (1861), 7 Jur. (N.S.) 894; 30 L. J. Ch. 649; 
 
 4 L. T. 206; 9 W. R. 515 43, 287 
 
 Knight v. Burgess (1864), 33 L. J. Ch. 727; 10 L. T. 90 302 
 
 Knight, R?g. v. See Reg. v. Knight. 
 
 Knowles, Lawrence v. See Lawrence v. Knowles. 
 
 Knowles in re, ex parte Thwaites (1834) , 1 M. & A. 323 256 
 
 Knox, Breese v. See Breese v. Knox. 
 
 Knox v Traver (1877), 24 Gr. 477 364 
 
 Kootenay Brewing Co. in re (1896) , 6 B. C. R. 112 605 
 
 Kopman, Doull v. See Doull v. Kopman. 
 
 Krawer Irwin, Bank of Hamilton v. See Bank of Hamilton v. 
 
 Krawer Irwin. 
 
 Krehl v. Park (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 334; 44 L. J. ChT 286 647 
 
 Krehl v. Great Central Gas Co. (1870), L. R. 5 Ex. 289; 39 L. J. 
 
 Ex. 197; 23 L. T. 72 367, 368 
 
 Kuntz Brewery v. Grant (1911), 20 O. W. R. 404; 3 O. W. N. 237. 377 
 Kuntz, Honsinger v. See Honsinger v. Kuntz. 
 
 Kurtz & McLean Ltd. (1908), 11 O. W. R. 437 162, 555, 557, 558 
 
 L. N. W. Ry. Co., in re Brown. See Brown in re, ex parte L. N. 
 
 W. Ry. Co.. 
 
 Labatt v. Bixel (1881), 28 Gr. 593 353 
 
 Lacey in re, ex parte Taylor (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 128; 1 Mor. 113. 445 
 
 Lacey ex parte (1802), 6 Ves. 625 256, 257 
 
 Lackington v. Elliott (1844), 8 Scott N. R. 275; 7 M. & G. 538; 
 
 13 L. J. C. P. 153; 8 Jur. 695 361 
 
 Lafontaine, Pitts v. See Pitts v. Lafontaine. 
 
 Lai Hop v. Jackson (1895), 4 B. C. R. 168 330 
 
 Laine and Longman in re, ex parte Berner (1886), 56 L. T. 170; 
 
 56 L. J. Q. B. 153 448 
 
 Laing, Gillingham v. See Gillingham v. Laing. 
 
 Lajorie, Laroque v. See Laroque v. Lajorie. . 
 
 Lake in re ex parte Cavendish (1903), 1 K. B. 151; 72 L. J. K. B. 
 
 ,117; 87 L. T. 655; 51 W. R. 319; 10 Mans. 17 309 
 
 Lake ex parte Dyer (1901), 1 K. B. 710; 70 L. J. K. B. 390; 84 
 
 L. T. 430; 8 Mans. 145 346, 348, 352 
 
 Lake Superior Native Copper Co. in re, Re Plummer (1885), 
 
 9 O. R. 277 164,591 
 
 Lak^ Winnipeg Transportation Co. (1892), 8 Man. R. 463 444 
 
 Lake Winnipeg Transportation Lumber and Trading Co., The 
 
 (1891), 7 M. L. R. 255 . . . : 27, 165 
 
 Lamb in re, ex parte Board of Trade, 9 R. 636; (1894), 2 Q. B. 
 
 805; 64 L. J. Q. B. 71; 71 L. T. 312; 1 Man. 373 395 
 
 Lamb v. Young (1890), 19 O. R. 104 343 
 
 Lambe in re (1867). 13 Grant 391 379 
 
 Lambert ex parte, in re Worsley. See Worsley in re, ex parte 
 
 Lambert. 
 Lancaster ex parte, in re Marsden. See Marsden in re, ex parte 
 
 Lancaster. 
 Lancaster, Botcherby v. See Botcherby v. Lancaster. 
 
 Landrock in re, ex parte Fabian (1884), 1 Mor. 62 302,. 351, 352 
 
 Lane-Pox in re, ex parte Gimblett (1900), 2 Q. B. 508; 69 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 722; 48 W. R. 650; 83 L. T. 176; 7 Man. 295 47 
 
 Lane in re, ex parte Gaze (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 74; 58 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 373; 61 L. T. 54; 6 Mor. 143 351 
 
 Lang ex parte, in re Hills. See Hills in re, ex parte Lang. 
 
 Lang, Graham v.. See Graham v. Lang. 
 
 Langley ex parte, in re Bishop. See Bishop in re, ex parte 
 
 Langley. 
 
 Langley v. Beardsley (1909) , 18 O. L. R. 67 366 
 
 Langley v. Kahnert (1905), (36 S. C. R. 114, 397; 9 O. L. R. 169; 
 
 4 O. W. R. 396; 25 Occ. U. 69) ; affirming 7 O. L. R. 356; 
 
 3 O. W. R. 9; 24 Occ. U. 225 293 
 
 Langley v. Palter (1909), 13 O. W. R. 951 343 
 
 Langley v. Van Allen (1902), 32 S. C. R. 174; 3 O. L. R. 5 *3 
 
 Langlois, Valin v. See Valin v. Langlois. „ 
 
 Langly v. Meir (1898), 25 O. A. R. 372 &* 
 
TABLE Ob' CASES. Ixxxiii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Langtry in re (1894), 63 L. J. Q. B. 570; 70 L. T. 736; 1 Mans. 
 
 169 395 
 
 Lannin, Hall v. See Hall v. Lannin. 
 
 Larard in re, ex parte Yeomaris & Heap (1896), 3 Mans. 317 140 
 
 Larocque v. Lajoie (1872), 17 L. C. J. 41 556 
 
 Lascelles, Administration of Jamaica v. See Administration of 
 
 Jamaica v. Lascelles. 
 Lauderdale, Garrard v. See Garrard v. Lauderdale. 
 Laurie in re, ex parte Green (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B. 431; 46 W. R. 
 
 491 ; 5 Man. 48 347 
 
 Laurie, Green v. See Green v. Laurie. 
 
 Lavell v. Can. Mineral Rubber Oo. (1914), 14 D. L. R. 521.. 557, 
 
 561, 562 
 Lavey in re, ex parte Cohen & Cohen (1920), B. & C. R. 182. .647, 649 
 
 La Vie v. Phillips, 1 W. Bl. 570 (1765), 3 Burr. 1776 57 
 
 Law Guarantee Society in re (1914), 2 Ch. 617; 84 L. J. Ch. 1; 
 
 111 L. T. 817 283, 295 
 
 Lawe, Brocklehurst v. See Brocklehurst v. Lawe. 
 
 Lawrence v. Knowles (1839), 5 Bing. N. C. 399 301 
 
 Lawrence & Porter in re, ex parte O. R. (1910), 55 Sol. J. 94. . 267 
 
 Lawson v. McGeoch, 22 O. R. 474; (1893), 20 O. A. R. 464 348 
 
 Lawson, Seear v. See Seear v. Lawson. 
 
 Lawton v. Blwes, in re Corsellis. See In re Corsellis. 
 
 Laye in re (1913), 1 Ch. 298; 82 L. J. Ch. 218; 108 L. T. 324; 
 
 57 Sol. J. 284; 20 Mans. 124 288 
 
 Laycock in re, Laycock v. Income Tax Commissioners (1918-19), 
 
 B. & C. R. 165 460 
 
 Laycock, Forrest v. See Forrest v. Laycock. 
 
 Layton ex parte (1821), 6 Ves. 440; (1801), 6 Ves. 434 59 
 
 Lazier v. Armstrong (1905), 5 O. W. R. 596 483 
 
 Lazier v. Henderson (1898), 29 O. R. 673 479, 480, 482 
 
 Leadbitter in re (1878), 10 Ch. D. 388; 48 L. J. Ch. 242; 39 L. T. 
 
 286; 27 W. R. 267 281, 393 
 
 Learoyd ex parte, in re Foulds. See In re Foulds, ex parte 
 
 Learoyd. 
 Learoyd ex parte, in re Luttman. See Luttman in re, ex parte 
 
 Learoyd. 
 Learmouth, McWhirter v. See McWhirter v. Learmouth. 
 Leather Sellers Co. ex parte, in re Tickle. See Tickle in re, 
 
 ex parte Leather Sellers Co. 
 Ledoux, Stewart v. See Stewart v. Ledoux. 
 Leduc Lumber Co., Walter v. See Waller v. Leduc Lumber Co. 
 
 Lee in re (1883), 23 Ch. D. 216; 31 W. R. 802; 48 L. T. 193 60 
 
 Lee in re, ex parte Good (1880), 14 Ch. D. 82; 49 L. J. Bank. 40. 
 
 489, 559 
 Lee in re, ex parte Grunwald (1920), 2 K. B. 200; 89 L. J. K. B. 
 
 364; (1918-19), B. & C. R. 287 430 
 
 Lee v. Hart (1856), 11 Ex. 880; 25 L. J. Ex. 135 106 
 
 Lee v. Nuttall (1879), 12 Ch. D. 61; 48 L. J. Ch. 616; 26 W. R. 
 
 805 ; 41 L. T. 4 78 
 
 Lee v. Olding (1856), 2 Jur. N. S. 850 290 
 
 Leech & Simkinson ex parte, in re Sunderland. See Sunderland 
 
 in re, ex parte Leech & Simpkinson. 
 Leeming v. Murray (1879), 13 Ch. D. 123; 48 L. J. Ch. 737; 
 
 28 W. R. 338 -. 245, 270 
 
 Lees v. Marton (1832) 1 Mor. & Rob. 210. 116 
 
 Leese v. Martin (1873), L. R. 17 Eq. 224 85 
 
 Le - Fanu, Bishop of Rochester v. See Bishop of Rochester v. 
 
 Le Fanu. 
 Lehmann in re, ex parte Hasluck (1890), 62 L. T. 941; 39 W. R. 
 
 16 ; 7 Mor. 181 131 
 
 Leicester ex parte, in re Higgs. See Higgs in re, ex parte 
 Leicester. 
 
 Leigh in re, ex parte Parr (1811) , 1 Rose 76 438 
 
 Leigh ex parte, in re Saunders. See Saunders in re, ex parte 
 
 Leigh. 
 Leighton in re (1866), L. R. 1 Ch. 331; 35 L. J. Bank. 43 514 
 
| XX xiv TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Leman ex parte, in re Barrand. See In re Barrand, ex parte 
 
 Leman. 
 Le Marchant ex parte, in re Fanshawe. See Fanshawe in re, 
 
 ex parte Le Marchant. 
 Lemieux & Capping Motor Distributors, Ltd., in re (1921), 1 
 
 C. B. R. 464 260 
 
 Lempriere v. Pasley (1788), 2 T. R. 485 86 
 
 Long in re, Tarn v. Emmerson (1895), 1 Ch. 652; 64 L. J. Ch. 
 
 468 ; 12 R. 202 ; 72 L. T. 407 ; 43 W. R. 406 453 
 
 Lennard ex parte, in re Chidley. See In re Chidley, ex parte 
 
 Lennard. 
 Lennox ex parte and in re (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 3l5; 55 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 45 ; 54 L. T. 452 ; 34 W. R. 51 ; 2 Mor. 271 133 
 
 Lennox v. Alaska Mercantile Co. (1906), (Y.T.) 4 W. L. R. 333. 45 
 
 Lenz, Greenburg v. See Greenburg v. Lenz. 
 
 Leonard in re (1896). 1 Q. B. 473; 65 L. J. Q. B. 393; 74 L. T. 
 
 183; 44 W. R. 438; 3 Man. 43 136 
 
 Leonard in re, ex parte (1874), L. R. 19 Eq. 269; 44 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 80 624 
 
 Leonard, Lewis v. See Lewis v. Leonard. 
 
 Leonard in re, ex parte Lewis (1819), 1 Gl. & J. 69 256, 258 
 
 Leonoff. Richards & Brown, Ltd. v. See Richards & Brown, Ltd. 
 
 v. Leonoff. 
 Lepage, Stewart v. See Stewart v. Lepage. 
 Leslie ex parte, in re, 18 Q. B. D. 619; (1887), 35 W. R. 395; 56 
 
 L. T. 569; 4 Mor. 75 592 
 
 Leslie in re, Leslie v. French (1883), 28 Ch. D. 552; 52 L. J. 
 
 Ch 762 . 313 
 
 Leslie R. Ltd'.' v.' Shie'll (1914),' A. C'.'607; 3 K, B. 607; 83 L. J. 
 
 K. B. 1145; 111 L. T. 106; 58 Sol J. 453 57 
 
 Leslie & Co. Ltd. ex parte, in re Wood. See Wood in re, ex parte 
 
 Leslie & Co. Ltd. 
 Lester ex parte, in re Lynes. See Lynes in re, ex parte Lester. 
 
 Lester v. Garland (1809), 15 Ves. 248 119 
 
 Lester v. Garland (1832), 5 Sim. 205; Mon. 471 287, 288 
 
 Le Tailleur v. South Bast Ry, Co. (1877), a C. P. D.18 66 
 
 Letourneux v. Dansereau (1886). 12 S. C. R. 307 237, 400 
 
 Levasseur v. Mason & Barry (1901), 2 Q. B. 73; 60 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 659; 39 W. R. 596; 64 L. T. 761 82 
 
 Levene v. Brougham, 53 Sol. J. 243; 25 T. L. R. 265 57 
 
 Levett, Brett v. See Brett v. Levett. 
 
 Levey in re, ex parte Topping (1865), 34 L. J. Bank. 44 429, 495 
 
 Levi in re, ex parte (1865), 34 L. J. Bank. 23 624, 626 
 
 Levi v. Ayers (1878), 3 A. C. 842; 47 L. J. P. C. 83 485 
 
 Levi & Co. Ltd. in re (1919), 1 Ch. D. 416; 88 L. J. Ch. 233 483 
 
 Levine in re (1921). 1 C. B. R. 410 (Patterson, R.) 644 
 
 Levine & Fluxgold (Liberty Cloak Co.'s Case) in re (1921), 
 
 1 C. B. R. 479; 20 O. W. N. 167 (Orde, J.) 663 
 
 Levy in re, ex parte Sheriff of Essex (1890), 63 L. T. 291; 38 
 
 W. R. 784; 7 Mor. 124 191 
 
 Levy v. Lovell (1880), 14 Ch. D. 234; 49 L. J. Ch. 305; 28 W. R. 
 
 602 ; 42 L. T. 242 81 
 
 Levy v. Stogdon (1898), 1 Ch. 478; 67 L. J. Ch. 313; 78 L. T. 
 
 185 86, 304 
 
 Levy, Woolford's Trustees v. ' See Woolford's Trustees v. Levy. 
 Levy's Trusts in re (1885), 30 Ch. D. 119; 54 L. J. Ch. 968; 
 
 33 W. R. 895; 53 L. T. 200 74, 75, 586 
 
 Lewes (Earl of) v. Barnett (1877), L. R. 6 Ch. 252; 47 L. J. " 
 
 Ch. 144; 26 W. R. 101 155 
 
 Lewis in re, ex parte Becker (1893), 10 Mor. 141 114, 653 
 
 Lewis in re, ex parte Mauthner (1876), 3 Ch. D. 113; 45 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 125 ; 34 L. T. 662 603 
 
 Lewis ex parte, in re Beard. See Beard in re, ex parte Lewis. 
 Lewis ex parte, in re Leonard. See Leonard in re, ex parte 
 
 Lewis. 
 
 Lewis v. Brown (1884) ,. 10 O. A. R. 639 364 
 
 Lewis, Graham v. See Graham v. Lewis. 
 
TABLE OF CAKES. 
 
 I xx xv 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Lewis v. Leonard (1880), 5 Ex. D. 165; 49 L. J. Ex. 308; 42 
 
 L. T. 351 535 
 
 Lewis, Ramsbottom v. See Ramsbotton v. Lewis. 
 
 Lewis v. Tudhope (1877), 27 U. C. C. P. 605; 30 C. P. 279.. 
 
 216, 217, 224 
 Lewis & Son Lim. ex parte, in re Turvey. See In re Turvey 
 
 ex parte Lewis & Son. 
 
 Ley in re (1900), 7 B. C. R. 94 286, 398 
 
 Liebert in re, ex parte Halliday (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 283, 288... 112 
 Lightbound, Meguerditchian v. See Meguerditehian v. Light- 
 bound. 
 Lighter, Allner v. See Allner v. Lighter. 
 
 Lind, in re Industrials Finance v. Lind (1915), 2 Ch. 345 83, 530 
 
 Lindon v. Sharp (1843), 6 M. & G. 895 104 
 
 Lindsay ex parte, in re (1874), L. R. 19 Eg. 52; 44 L. J/ Bank. 5; 
 
 31 L. T. 415; 23 W. R. 44 133, 655 
 
 Lindsay ex parte, in re Armstrong. See Armstrong in re, ex 
 
 parte Lindsay. 
 Lindsay ex parte, in re Bates. See Bates in re, ex parte Lindsay. 
 
 Linton v. Imperial Hotel Co. (1889), 16 O. A. R. 337 482, 485 
 
 Linton v. Linton (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 239; 54 L. J. Q. B. 529; 52 
 
 L. T. 782; 33 W. R. 714; 2 Mor. 179 163, 420 
 
 Lion. Selig v. See Selig v. Lion. . 
 
 Liquidator of Maritime Bank of Canada v. Receiver-Gen. of New 
 
 Brunswick, 20 S. C. R. 695; (1892), A. C. 437; 5 Cart. 1. 
 
 323, 609, 610 
 Lister in re, ex parte Simmons (1876), 2 Ch. D. 749; 45 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 113 ; 34 L. T. 744 591 
 
 Lister ex parte, in re Halberstam. See Halberstam in re, ex 
 
 parte Lister. 
 Lister v. Hooson (1908), 1 K. B. 174; 77 L. J. K. B 161; 98 L. T. 
 
 75; 52 Sol. J. 93; 15 Mans. 17 322, 329 
 
 Little, Bank of Montreal v. See Bank of Montreal v. Little. 
 Littler in re, ex parte Manchester and Liverpool Bank (1874), 
 
 L. R. 18 Eg.. 249; 43 L. J. Bank. 73; 22 W. R. 567; 30 L. T. 
 
 339 213, 216, 438 
 
 Liverpool Loan Co. ex parte, in re Bullen. See Bullen in re, 
 
 ex parte Liverpool Loan Co. 
 Liverpool and London Guarantee Co. (1880), 46 L. T. 54; 30 
 
 W. R. 378 .....112, 341 
 
 Livesley, Efeathcote v. See Heathcote v. Livesley. 
 
 Llangennach Coal Co. (1887), 56 L. T. 475 39 
 
 Lloyd in re and ex parte (1889), 62 L. T. 366; 6 Mor. 297. . .591, 592 
 Lloyd ex parte, in re Jones. See Jones in re, ex parte Lloyd. 
 Lloyd ex parte, in re Peters. See Peters in re, ex parte Lloyd. 
 Lloyd ex parte, in re Watson & Co. See Watson & Co. in re, 
 
 ex parte Lloyd. 
 
 Lloyd v. Banks (1867), L. R. 3 Ch. 488; 37 L. J. Ch 881 310 
 
 Lloyd v. Dimmack (1877), 7 Ch. D. 398; 47 L. J. Ch. 398; 38 L. 
 
 T. 173 301 
 
 Lloyd v. Heathcote (1820), 2 B. & B. 388 x . 117 
 
 Lloyd v. Lloyd (1866) , L. R. 2 Eq. 722 289 
 
 Lloyd's Bank v. Pearson (1901), 1 Ch. 865; 70 L. J. Ch. 422; 84 
 
 L. T. 314 311 
 
 Llynvi Coal Co. ex parte, in re Hide. See Hide in re, ex parte 
 
 Llynvi Coal Co. 
 
 Lock in re, ex parte Poppleton (1890), 7 Mor. 184 638 
 
 Locke, Palmer v. See Palmer v. Locke. 
 
 Lockwood, Institute of Patent Agents v. See Institute of Patent 
 
 Agents v. Lockwoou. 
 
 Lockyer v. Savage (1733), 2 Str. 947 288 
 
 Lodge ex parte, in re Pendal. See In re Fendal, ex parte Lodge. 
 Lodge & Harper, Pettit v. See Pettit v. Lodge & Harper. 
 Loftus-Otway in re (1895), 2 Ch. 235; 64 L. J. Ch. 529; 72 L. T. 
 
 656; 43 W. R. 501 289 
 
 Logan v Rta (1903), 40 C L. J. 44 286 
 
Ixx.wi TABLK OF CASUS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Lomax v. Buxton (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 107; 40 L. J. C. P. 150; 
 
 24 L. T. 137; 19 W. R 441 102, 104 
 
 London & Bombay Bank in re, ex parte Cama (1874), L. R. 9 
 
 Ch. 686; 43 L. J. Bank. 683; 31 L. T. 234 426 
 
 London Celluloid in re (1888), 39 Ch. D. 190, 204 44 
 
 ■ London and County Banking Co. v. Morris, James in re. See 
 
 Morris v. London and County Banking Co. 
 London and County Contracts Co. v. Tallack (1903), 51 W. R. 
 
 408; 19 T. L. R. 156; (1903), W. N. 8 374 
 
 London and County Discount Co. ex parte, in re a Debtor. See 
 
 In re a Debtor, ex parte London and County Discount Co. 
 
 London Drapery Stores (1898) , 2 Ch. 684 300 
 
 London and Globe Finance Corporation in re (1902), 2 Ch. 416; 
 
 72 L. J. Bank. 893; 87 L. T. 49 85 
 
 London India Rubber Co. (1867), 5 Eq. 519 394 
 
 London Prov. Telegraph Co. in re (1870), L. R. 9 Eq. 653; 39 
 
 L. J. Ch. 419; 23 L. T. 237; 18 W. R. 597 307, 309 
 
 London, Windsor and Greenwich Hotels Co. in re Quarter- 
 master's Case, 1 Ch. 639; (1892), 61 L. J. Ch. 273; 66 L. T. 
 
 19 439, 440, 454, 455 
 
 London Woolen Co., in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 432 121 
 
 Long in re (1905), 2 I. R. 343. 597 
 
 Long in re, ex parte Cuddeford (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 316; 57 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 360; 58 L. T. 664; 36 W. R. 346; 5 Mor. 29 131 
 
 'Long in re, ex parte Fuller (1881), 16 Ch. D. 617; 50 L. J. Ch. 
 
 448; 44 L. T. 63; 29 W. R. 448 86 
 
 Long v. Carter, 23 A. R. 121; (1896), 26 S. C. R. 430 284 
 
 Long, Hunt v. See Hunt v. Long. 
 
 Longdendale Cotton Spinning Co. in re (1878), 8 Ch. D. 150". 162, 563 
 
 Lord's Trustee v. G. E. Ry. (1908), 2 K. B. 76; (1908), 1 K. B. 
 
 202; 15 Mans. 40, 129 .• 85 
 
 Lorrimar in re, ex parte Constable (1890), 7 Mor. 235 605 
 
 Lougheed, Skill v. See Skill v. Lougheed. 
 
 Loughrin, Geller v. See Geller v. Loughrin. 
 
 Love in re, ex parte Watson (1877), 5 Ch. D. 35; 46 L. J. Bank. 
 
 97; 37 L. T. 75; 25 W. R. 489 .-.. 302 
 
 Lovell ex parte, in re Osborne. See Osborne in re, ex parte 
 
 Lovell. 
 Lovell, Levy v. See Levy v. Lovell. . . 
 Lovell & Christmas .v. Beauchamp, 11 R. 60; (1894), A. C. 607; 
 
 63 L. J. Q. B. 802; 71 L. T. 587; 43 W. R. 129; 1 Man. 467. 
 
 578, 605, 657 
 Lovering ex parte, in re Ayshford. See Ayshford in re, ex parte 
 
 Lovering. 
 Lovering ex parte, in re Thorpe. See Thorpe in re, ex parte 
 
 Lovering. 
 Lovering, Hopkinson v. See Hopkinson v. Lovering. 
 
 Lovett v. Lovett (1898), 1 Ch. 82; 67 L. J. Ch. 20 334 
 
 Low in re, Gibson ex parte (1895), 1 Q. B. 734; 64 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 362; 72 L. T. 450; 43 W. R. 409; 2 Man. 169 606 
 
 Low v. G. E. Ry. Co. (1908) , 1 K. B. 195 299 
 
 Lowe ex parte, in re (1890), 62 L. T. 263; 38 W. R. 560; 7 
 
 Man. 25 128 
 
 Lowenthal in re, ex parte (1874), L. A. 9 Ch. 324; 43 L. J. Bank. 
 
 83 608 
 
 Lowenthal in re, ex parte Beesty (1884), 13 Q B. D. 238; 53 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 524 565 
 
 Lowndes in re, ex parte Trustee (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 677; 56 L. 
 
 J. Q. B. 425; 56 L. T. 575; 35 W. R 549; 4 Mor. 139.. 333, 334 
 Lubbock ex parte (1863), 4 De G. J. & S. 516; 32 L. J. Bank. 
 
 58 ; 8 L. T. 474 454, 455 
 
 Lucas v. Dicker, 6 Q. B. D. 84; (1880), 50 L. J. C. P. 190; 43 L. 
 
 T. 429; 29 W. R. 115; 5 C. P. D. 150 361, 362 
 
 Lucas v. Martin (1888), 37 Ch. D. 597; 57 L. J. Ch. 261; 58 L. T. 
 
 862: 36 W. R. 627 218 
 
 Lucas, Tanner & Co. (1900) , 32 O. R. 1 632 
 
 Luce In re, Moore v. See In re Moore v. Luce. 
 
TABLE OF CASUS. Ixxxvii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Luckhardt in re (1898), 29 0. R. Ill 294 
 
 Luckes ex parte, in re Wood. See Wood in re, ex parte Luckes. 
 
 Luckin v. Simpson (1840), 6,Bing. N. C. 353 632 
 
 Luddy's Trustee v. Peafd (1886), 33 Ch. D. 500; 55 L. J. Ch. 
 
 884; 55 L. T. 137; 35 W. R. 40 .' 258 
 
 Ludlow v. Browning (1708) , 11 Mod. 138 283 
 
 Lumbers, McHarg v. See McHarg v. Lumbers. 
 
 Lumsden v. Scott (1883), 4 0. R. 323 , 45 
 
 Lumsden, Gillet v. See Gillet v. Lumsden. 
 
 Lundy Granite Go. in re, ex parte Heaven (1871), L, R. 6 Ch. 
 
 462 479, 484, 563 
 
 Lutscher in re, ex parte Waddell (1877), 6 Ch. D. 328; 37 L. T. 
 
 345 508, 511 
 
 Luttman in re, ex parte Learoyd (1880), 13 Ch. D. 321; 42 
 
 L. T. 162 655 
 
 Luxton v. Hamilton (1864) , 10 U. C. L. J. 334 240 
 
 Lyde v. Mynn (1833), 4 Sim. 505; 1 Mj. & K. 683 536 
 
 Lykes re, Jaram v. Holmes (1909), 53 Sol. J. 267 134, 165 
 
 Lynes in re, ex parte Lester, 4 R. 416 (1893), 2 Q. B. 113; 62 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 372; 68 L. T. 739; 41 W. R. 488; 10 Mor. 124 59 
 
 Lyon ex parte, in re Dumbell. See Dumbell in re, ex parte 
 
 Lyon. 
 Lyon, Parker v. See Parker v. Lyon. , 
 
 Lyon, Yarrington v. See Yarrirlgton v% Lyon. 
 Lyons, Rooney v. See Rooney v. Lyons. 
 
 Macdonald in re (1919), 88 L. J. K. B. 1226 331 
 
 Macdonald in re, ex parte Grant (1888), W. N. 130 571 
 
 Macdonald ex parte, in re Beveridge. See Beveridge in re. ex 
 
 parte Macdonald. 
 
 Macdonald v. Balfour (1892), 20 O. A. R. 404 263, 470 
 
 Macdonald v. Georgian Bay Lumber Co. (1878), 2 S. C. R. 364. 71 
 Macdonald, Henderson v. See Henderson v. Macdonald. 
 MacDonald, Mason v. See Mason v. MacDonald. 
 MacDonal.d v. McCall (1885), 12 O. A. R. 593; 13 S. C. R. 247. 
 
 45 377. 379 
 
 MacDonald, Deakin & Jones in re (1914), 58 S. J. 798 '....' 510 
 
 MacDonald, John & Co. Ltd. v. Tew (1914), 32 O. L R. 262.. 
 
 ' 40, 81, 193 
 Macdonell, Kennedy v. See Kennedy v. Macdonell. 
 Macfadyen in re, ex parte Glass (1908), W. N. 13; 98 L. T. 55; 52 
 
 Sol. J. 134 270 
 
 Macfadyen & Co. in re, ex parte Vizianagaram Mining Co 
 
 (1908), 1 K. B. 675; 77 L. J. K. B. 319; 98 L. T. 220; 15 
 
 Mans. 28 75, 390, 449, 559, 586 
 
 Macfarlane in re (1868) , 12 L. C. J. 239 171 
 
 Macfarlane v. McDonald (1874), 21 G. R. 319 341 
 
 MacFarlane v. Morris (1862) , 2 B. & S. 783 • 321 
 
 Machin, Olson v. See Olson v. Machin. 
 
 Mackinnon. North-West Theatre Co. v. See North-West Theatre 
 
 Co. v. Mackinnon. 
 MacKay ex parte,, in re Jeavons. See Jeavons in re, ex parte 
 
 MacKay. 
 Mackay ex parte, in re Page. See Page in re, ex parte Mackay. 
 MacKay v. Douglas (1872), L. R. 14 Eq. 106; 41 L. J. Ch. 529 or 
 
 539; 26 L. T. 721; 20 W. R. 652 108, 330 
 
 Mackay v. Goodson in re (1868), 27 U. C. Q. B. 263 536 
 
 Mackell v. Ottawa Separate School Trustees (1917), 40 O. L. R. 
 
 272 644 
 
 MacKenzie ex parte, in re Bent. See In re Bent, ex parte Mac- 
 
 Kenzie. 
 Mackenzie ex parte, in re Helliwell. See Helliwell in re, ex 
 
 parte Mackenzie. 
 Mackenzie, Major v. See Major v. Mackenzie. 
 MacKintosh in re and ex parte (1884), 13 Q. B. D 325; 1 Mor. . 
 
 84 155 
 
 Mackintosh v. Pogose (1895), 1 Ch. 505; 64 L. J. Ch. 274; 72 
 
 L. T. 251 ; 2 Mans. 27 43, 288, 331, 332, 364. 451, 453 
 
I X \ X \ 1 1 1 
 
 TABLE 01'' VANES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Mackley v. Pattenden (1861), 1 B. & S. 178 305 
 
 Maclean ex parte (1$42), 2 M. & D. 564; 24 L. T. 144 428 
 
 Maclister ex parte (1900), 69 L. J. Q. B. 690; 7 Man. 281 82 
 
 Macredie ex parte, re Charles. See in re Charles, ex parte Mac- 
 
 redie. 
 
 Madden v. Kempster (1807), 1 Camp. 12 86 
 
 Madell v. Thomas (1891), 1 Q. B. 238; 60 L. J. Q. B. 227; 64 
 
 L. T. 9; 39 W. R. 280 142 
 
 Magann v. Ferguson (1895), 29 O. R. 235 483 
 
 Magee in re, ex parte (1883), 15 Q. B. D. 332; 54 L.»J. Q. B. 394; 
 
 33 W. R. 655 601 
 
 Magee v. Rankin (1869), 29 U. C, Q. B. 257 305,. 485 
 
 Magill v. Young (1848), 10 U. C. Q. B. 301 484, 485 
 
 Magnus in re, ex parte Robertson (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 962; 29 
 
 L. T. 124; 21 W. R. 875 273 
 
 Maguire, Beavis v. See Beavis v. Maguire. 
 
 Major v. Mackenzie (1895), 17 P. R. 18 264 
 
 Makepeace, Union Bank of Canada v. See Union Bank of Can- 
 ada v. Makepeace. 
 Malone, Ryan v. See Ryan v. Malone. 
 
 Malachy ex parte' (1840), 1 M. D. & D. 353; 10 L. J. Bank. 7. . . 282 
 Malcolm, Bowman v. See Bowman v. Malcolm. 
 Maltby, Anderson v. See Anderson y. Maltby. 
 Maltby, Nell.es v. See Welles. v. Maltby. 
 Manchester Bank ex parte, in re Collie. See In re Collie, ex 
 
 parte Manchester Bank. 
 Manchester & County Bank ex parte, in re Hulton. See Hulton 
 
 in re, ex parte Manchester & County Bank. 
 Manchester & Liverpool Bank, ex -parte, in re Littler. See 
 
 Littler in re, ex parte Manchester & Liverpool Bank. 
 Mandelberg & Co. ex parte, in re Howell ex parte (1895), See 
 
 Howell In re, ex parte Mandelberg. 
 
 Mander in re, ex parte O. R. (190,2). 86 L. T. 234 145 
 
 Manley, Bulteel v. See Bulteel's Settlements in re, Bulteel v. 
 
 Manley. 
 Manning in re (1885), 30 Ch D. 480; 55 L. J. Ch. 613; 54 L. T. 
 
 33 154, 158, 174, 196 
 
 Manning in Te. ex parte Mills (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 594; 40 L. J. 
 
 Bank, 89; 24 L. T. 859; 19 W. R. 1012 162. 165, 565 
 
 Mansel in re, ex parte Newitt (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 177; 54 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 245; 52 L. T. 202; 33 W. R. 142 240 
 
 Mansel in re, ex parte Norton (1891), 9 Mor. 198 556 
 
 Mansell in re, ex parte Sayer (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 679; 56 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 605 239 
 
 Mant ex parte, in re Daintrey. See In re Daintrey, ex parte 
 
 Mant. 
 Mapleback in re, ex parte Caldecott (1876), 4 Ch. D. 150; 13 
 
 Cox, 374 43, 147, 280, 292, 308 
 
 Maple Leaf, Robinhood v. See Robinhood v. Maple Leaf. 
 
 Maple Leaf, Robinson v. See Robinson v. Maple Leaf. 
 
 Maple Leaf Dairy Co., in re (1901), 2 O. L. R. 590; 21 C. L. T. 
 
 596 136 
 
 Maranda. Empire Sash and Door Co. v. See Empire Sash and 
 
 Door Co. v. Maranda. 
 March ex parte, in re Hilton. See Hilton in re, ex parte March. 
 March, Shrager v. See Shrager v. March. 
 Marchant Le ex parte, in re Fanshawe. See In re Fanshawe, 
 
 ex parte Marchant Le. 
 
 Marchant v. Morton (1901), 2 K. B. 829; 85 L. T. 169 309 
 
 Marcotts v. Turcott (1901), 4 Q. P. R. 342 562 
 
 Mardon ex parte, in re Downing. See Downing in re, ex parte 
 
 Mardon. 
 Margrett ex parte, in re Soltykoff. See Soltykoff in re, ex parte 
 
 Margrett. 
 
 Maritime Bank v. Robinson (1866), 26 N. B. R. 297 324, 325 
 
 Maritime Trust Co., Ltd. in re (1916L ?6 D L R. 92 555 
 
 Mark's Trust Deed in re (1866), L. R. 1 Ch. 429 514 
 
TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxix 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Markwick v. Hardingham (1880), 15 Ch. D. 339; 43 L. T. 647; 
 
 29 W. R. 361 544 
 
 Marsden in re, ex parte (1876), L. R. 2 Ch. 786; 45 L. J. Bank. 
 
 141; 24 W. R. 715 624, 625, 626 
 
 Marsden in re, ex parte Board of Trade (1892), 9 Mor. 70 397 
 
 Marsden re, ex parte Lancaster (1883), 25 Ch. D. 311; 53 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 1123 ; 50 L. T. 223 354 
 
 Marsden v. Minnekahda Land Co. (1918), 2 W. W. R. 471 (B.C.) ; 
 
 40 D. L. R. 76 595 
 
 Marsh in re, ex parte Board of Trade (1894), 43 W. R. 208; 71 
 
 L. T. 776 574, 648 
 
 Marsh in re, ex parte Smith (1832), 1 D. & C. 267 249 
 
 Marsh v. Higgins (1850), 19 L. J. C. P. 297; 9 C. B. 551 632 
 
 Marshall in re, ex parte (1841), 1 M. D. & D. 575 98, 128 
 
 Marshall ex parte (1833), M. & Bl. 242; 1 M. & A. 118 488 
 
 Marshall, Holroyd v. See Holroyd v. Marshall. 
 
 Marshall, Parkes and Co., Powell v. See Powell v. Marshall, 
 
 Parkes and Co. 
 Marshall. Shipley v. See Shipley v. Marshall. 
 
 Martin in re, and English (1880) , 5 O. A. R. 647 494 
 
 Martin ex parte, in re Strick. See Strick in re, ex parte Martin. 
 
 Martin, Boone v. See Boone v. Martin. 
 
 Martin v. Brummell & Richardson, 4 Tj. C. P. R. 229; 4 U. C. 
 
 L. J. N. S. 137 226, 535 
 
 Martin v. Evans (1884) , 6 O. R. 238 467 
 
 Martin v. Fowler (1912), 46 S. C. R. 119; 6 D. L. R. 243 190 
 
 Martin, Leese v. See Leese v. Martin. 
 Martin, Lucas v. See Lucas v. Martin. 
 
 Martin v. McAlpine (1883) , 8 O. A. R. 675 370 
 
 Martin v. McMullen (1890), 19 O. R. 230; 20 O. R. 257; 18 O. A. 
 
 R. 559 424, 438 
 
 Martin, Morris v. See Morris v. Martin. 
 
 Martin v. Pewtress' (1769), 4 Burr. 2477 47 
 
 Martin, Pigeon v. See Pigeon v. Martin. 
 
 Marton, Lees v. See Lees v. Marton. 
 
 Maskelyne and Cooke v. Smith (1903), 1 K. B. 671; 72 L. J. K. B. 
 
 237 ; 88 L. T. 148 ; 51 W. R. 372 ; 10 Man. 121 95, 107 
 
 Mason in re, ex parte Kirkwood (1879), 11 Ch. D. 724; 27 W. R. 
 
 806 ; 40 L. T. 567 605 
 
 Mason ex parte, in re White. See White in re,, ex parte Mason. 
 
 Mason v. Hogg, 2 My. & Co. 443 440 
 
 Mason v^. Bolton's Library Co. (1913), 1 K. B. 83; 82 L. J. K. B. 
 
 '217; 107 L. T. 673; 57 Sol. J. 96; 20 Mans. 1, and see Philli- 
 
 more, J., in Court below (1912), 2 K. B. 520; 81 L. J. K. B. 
 
 821 ; 106 L. T. 992 ; 19 Mans. 213 120. 
 
 Mason, Cotter v. See Cotter v. Mason. 
 
 Mason v. Hamilton (1872), 22 TJ. C. C. P. 190, 411 461 
 
 Mason v. Higgins, in re Kennedy. See In re Kennedy, Mason 
 
 v. Higgins. 
 
 Mason v. MacDonald (1880), 45 U. C. Q. B. 113 229, 320, 321, 632 
 
 Mason v. Merchants Bank (1877), 27 TJ. C. C. P. 383 271 
 
 Mason, Sharman v. See Sharman v. Mason. 
 
 Mason & Barry, Levasseur v. See Lavasseur v. Mason & Barry. 
 
 Massey ex parte, in re Barned's Banking Co. See In re Barned's 
 
 Banking Co., ex parte Massey. 
 Massie, Shaw v. See Shaw v. Massie. 
 Masonic and General Life Assce. Co. v. Sharpe, in re Sharpe. 
 
 See In re Sharpe, Masonic and General Life Insurance Co. 
 
 v. Sharpe. 
 Masters, ex parte, Charlwood in re. See Charlwood in re, ex 
 
 Masuret v. Stewart (1892), 22 O. R. 290 370 
 
 Matanle in re, ex parte Schulte (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 409; 30 L. T. 
 
 478; 22 W. R. 462 363 
 
 Mather, Jennings v. See Jennings v. Mather. 
 
 Matheson, Royal Canadian Bank v. See Royal Canadian Bank 
 
 v. Matheson. 
 
xc . TABLE OF CASBH. 
 
 PACK 
 
 Matthews (1886), 53 L. T. 872 94 
 
 Matthews ex parte, in re Hodges. See Hodges in re, ex parte 
 
 Matthews. 
 Matthews, Gordon v. See Gordon v. Matthews. 
 Matthews, Sharp and Secord v. See Sharp and Secord v. Mat- 
 thews. 
 Matthews & Wilkinson ex parte, in re Johnson. See Johnson 
 
 in re, ex parte Matthews & Wilkinson. 
 Maude ex parte, L. R. 2 Ch. 550 (1867), 16 L. T. 577; 15 W .R. 
 
 856 471 
 
 Maude ex parte, in re Hodges Distilling Co. See Hodges Distil- 
 ling Co. in re, ex parte Maude. 
 Maugham in re and ex parte (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 21; 36 W. R. 846; 
 
 57 L. J. Q. B. 487; 59 L. T. 243; 5 Mor. 152 571. 580, 590 
 
 Maule v Davis in re Motion. See Motion in re, Maule v. Davis. 
 Maule, Watkins v. See Watkins v. Maule. 
 
 Maulson v. Commercial Bank (1846). 2 U. C. Q. B. 338 8 
 
 Maund in re, ex parte (1895), 1 Q. B. 194; 11 T. L. R. 126; 1 Man. 
 
 514; 43 W. R. 207; 64 L. J. Q. B. 183; 72 L. T. 58 578 
 
 Mauthner ex parte, in re Lewis. See Lewis in re, ex parte 
 
 Mauthner. 
 
 Mavor, ex parte (1815), 19 Ves. 538, 542 581 
 
 Mawby, Bagge v. See Bagge v. Mawby. 
 
 Mawe, Blwes v. See Elwes v. Mawe. 
 
 Maxim ex parte, in re Nordenfeldt. See Nordenfeldt in re, ex 
 
 parte Maxim. 
 May in re, ex parte (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 497; 53 L. J. Q. B. 571; 
 
 50 L. T. 744; 1 Mor. 50 591, 605 
 
 May re, Crawford v. May (1890), 60 L. J. Ch. 34; 45 Ch. D. 499; 
 
 63 L. T. 375 ; 38 W. R. 765 40, 453 
 
 May ex parte, in re Brightmore. See In re Brightmore, ex parte 
 
 May. 
 May ex parte, in re Spackman. See Spackman in re, ex parte 
 
 May. 
 May, Hope v. See Hope v. May. 
 May, Mucklow v. See Mucklow v. May. 
 
 Mayhew v. Boyes (1909), 103 L. T. 1 99 
 
 Mayne in re, ex parte O. R. (1907). 2 K. B. 899; 76 L. J. K. B. 
 
 1086; 97 L. T. 644; 14 Mans. 261 390 
 
 Mayou ex parte, in re Wood. See Wood in re, ex parte Mayou. 
 McAllister, Canada Landed Credit Co. v. See Canada Landed 
 
 Credit Co. v. McAllister. 
 
 McAllister v. Forsyth (1885), 12 S: C. R. 1 82, 101, 175, 349 
 
 McAlplne, Martin v. See Martin v. McAlpine. 
 
 McArdle, Groves v. See Groves v. McArdle. 
 
 McArthur, Stephens v. See Stephens v. McArthur. 
 
 McCall, MacDonald v. See MacDonald v. McCall. 
 
 McCarthy v. Capital and Counties Bank (1911), 2 K. B. 1088; 
 
 81 L. J. K. B. 14; 105 L. T. 327; 18 Mans. 343 144, 360 
 
 McCarthy & Sons Co. of Prescott Ltd. in re (1916), 38 O. L. R. 
 
 3; 32 D. L. R. 441 555, 556, 562, 564, 594, 596 
 
 McCarthy, Patterson v. See Patterson v. McCarthy. 
 McCauley, Mitchell v. See Mitchell v. McCauley. 
 McCauley, Robinson v. See Robinson v. McCauley. 
 McCormick, Ellis v. See Ellis v. McCormick. 
 
 McCracken in re, Dallas v. Stinson (1879), 4 O. A. R. 486 479 
 
 McCrae v. White (1883), 9 S. C. R. 22 350 
 
 McCuaig, Miller v. See Miller v. McCuaig. 
 
 McCulloch ex parte, in re (1880), 14 Ch. D. 716; 43 L. T. 161; 
 
 28 W. R. 935 137, 587 
 
 McDermott ex parte, in re McHenry (1888). See McHenry in re, 
 
 ex parte McDermott. 
 McDermott v. Boyd, in re McHenry. See In re McHenry. 
 
 McDonagh v. Jephson in re (1889), 16 O. A. R. 107 467 
 
 McDonald v. Boice (1865) , 12 Gr. 48 488 
 
TABLE OE CASES. XC1 
 
 PAGE 
 
 McDonald v. Curran (1909), 14 0.* W. R. 838; 1 0. W. N. 121; 
 
 affirmed (1910) , 15 0. W. R. 218 47 
 
 McDonald, Gibbons v. See Gibbons v. McDonald. 
 
 McDonald v. Horan (1908) , 12 0. W. R. 1151 363 
 
 McDonald v. Hanson (1806), 12 Ves. 277 259 
 
 McDonald, McFarlane v. See McFarlane v. McDonald. 
 McDonald, Philps v. See Philps v. McDonald. 
 
 McDonnell in re (1871), 15 L. C. J. 145; 3 Rev. Leg. 122 556, 562 
 
 McDowall, ex parte, in re Ross. See Ross in re, ex parte Mc- 
 
 Dowall. 
 
 McBachern v. Gordon (1899), 18 P. R. 459 265, 511 
 
 McBdwards v. McLean (1878) , 43 U. C. Q. B. 454 479 
 
 McBntire v. Crossley Bros. (1895), A. C. 457, 461 39 
 
 McEntire v. Potter & Co. (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 438; 60 L. T. 600; 
 
 37 W. R. 607 309 
 
 McGary in re (1919), 18 O. L. R. 525 337 
 
 MoGee v. Campbell, 28 Gr. 308; (1882), 2 O. R. 130 494, 534 
 
 McGee, Torkington v. See Torkington v. McGee. 
 
 McGeoch, Lawson v. See Lawson v. MeGeoch. 
 
 McGill Chair Co. in re; Re Matthew Guy Carriage Co. (1912), 
 
 22 O. W. R. 222; 3 O. W. N. 1326; 26 O. L. R. 254; 5 D. L. R. 
 
 393 593 . 
 
 McGillivray, Robinson v. See Robinson v. McGillivray. 
 McGillivray, Shuttleworth v. See Shuttleworth v. McGillivray. 
 McGinn, Bellyse v. See Bellyse v. McGinn. 
 McGowan ex parte, in re Ashton. See In re Ashton, ex parte 
 
 McGowan. 
 McGrade, Le Syndicat Lyonnais du Klondyke v. See Le Syndi- 
 
 cat Lyonnais du Klondyke v. McGrade. 
 McGrath in re, ex parte O. R. (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 466; 7 Mor. 
 
 20 . „ 512, 666 
 
 McGregor v. Campbell (1909), 19 Man. L. R. 38; 10 "W. L. R. 
 
 326 ; 11 W. L. R. 153 171, 285, 321 
 
 McGregor v. Hume, 28 U. C. R. 380 353 
 
 McGuire, Ottawa Wine Vaults Co. v. (1913), 48 S. C. R. 44; 24 
 
 O. L. R. 591 108 
 
 McHarg v. Lumbers (1894) , 23 O. A. R. 51 370 
 
 McHenry in re (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 351; 55 L. J. Q. B. 496 650 
 
 McHenry ex parte, in re (1883), 24 Ch. D. 35; 53 L. J. Ch. 27; 
 
 48 L. T. 921 406 
 
 McHenry in re, ex' parte McDermott (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 580; 36 
 
 W. R. 725 214 
 
 McHenry in re, McDermott v. Boyd (1894), 3 Ch. 365; 64 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 13 ; 71 L. T. 502 217, 225 
 
 McHenry, Brandon v. See Brandon v. McHenry. 
 McHenry, Ellis v. See Ellis v. McHenry. 
 McHenry, Sharp v. See Sharp v. MeHenry. 
 
 Mclnnis in re, ex parte Bumpstead (1891), 8 T. L. R. 14 345 
 
 Mcintosh, Dumble v., in re Music Hall Block. See In re Music 
 
 Hall Block, Dumble v. Mcintosh. 
 McKay, Barnes v. See Barnes v. McKay. 
 McKay et al., Craig v. See Craig v. McKay. 
 McKay v. Douglas (1872), L. R. 14 Eq. 106; 41 L. J. Ch. 529 or 
 
 539; 26 L. T. 721; 20 W. R. 652 108, 330 
 
 McKeand in re, ex parte (1889) , 6 Mor. 240 115 
 
 McKenzie in re (1871), 31 U. C. Q. B. 1 67, 171 
 
 McKernan, Graham v. See Graham v. McKernan. 
 
 McKewan v. Sanderson (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 65; 27 L. T. 715 217 
 
 McKewan, Thornton v. See Thornton v. McKewan. 
 McKibbon, Clements v. See Clements v. McKibbon. 
 McKinnon, Meader v. See Meader v. McKinnon. 
 
 McKitrick v. Haley (1881), 46 U. C. Q. B. 246 215 
 
 McLaren in re, ex parte Cooper (1879), 11 Ch. D. 68; 48 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 49 ; 27 W. R. 518 ; 40 L. TT105 302 
 
 McLaren and Chalmers, Re (1876), 1 O. A. R. 68 171 173 
 
 McLarty Re (1908), 12 O. W. R. 1171 513 
 
xe jj TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 McLarty v. Todd (1912), 23 O. W. R. 166; 4 0. W. N. 172; 7 D. 
 
 L. R. 344 264, 463, 481 
 
 McLaughlin, Oliver v. See Oliver v. McLaughlin. 
 
 McLean ex parte (1871), 24 L. T. 144' 354 
 
 McLean, Dana v. See Dana v. McLean. 
 
 McLean, McBdwards v. See McEdwardB v. McLean. 
 
 McLean v. McLellan (1870), 29 U. C. Q. B. 548 534, 535 
 
 McLean, Smith v. See Smith v. McLean. 
 
 McLean, Stinson & Brodie Ltd. in re (l&H), 18 0. W. R. 163; 2 
 
 O. W. N. 435 594 
 
 McLean Ltd., Kurtz v. See Kurtz v. McLean Ltd. 
 McLellan, Imperial Bank v. See Imperial Bank v. McLellan. 
 McLellan, McLean v. See McLean v. McLellan. 
 McLeod. Bank of Scotland v. See Bank of Scotland v. McLeod. 
 
 "McMaster v. Clare (1859), 7 Gr. 550 45 
 
 McMaster, Clarkson v. See Clarkson v. McMaster. 
 
 McMaster v. King (1878), 3 O. A. R. 106 • 534 
 
 McMillan in re (1877), 13 U. C. L. J. 105 223 
 
 McMillan, Smith v. See Smith v. McMillan. 
 
 McMullen, Martin v. See Martin v. McMullen. 
 
 McMurdo re (1902), 2 Ch. 684; 71 L. J. Ch. 691; 82 L. T. 814. 
 
 391 432 439 441 
 
 McNabb v. Oppenheimer (1885), 11 P. R. 214 ' '.....' 592 
 
 McOwan, Stevenson v. See Stevenson v. McOwan. 
 
 McRae in re (1877), 1 O. A. R. 387 216 
 
 MoRae, Ross v. in re Great Northern Construction. See Great 
 
 Northern Construction in re, Ross v. McRae. 
 
 McRoberts v. Steinhoff (1885), 11 O. R. 369 343,349 
 
 McTavish, Bank of Montreal v. See Bank of Montreal v. McTav- 
 
 ish. 
 
 McTavish v. Rogers (1896), 23 O. A. R. 17 ..378, 379 
 
 McTear in re, ex parte (1888), 59 L. T. 150; 5 Mor. 182 221, 223 
 
 McWhirter, Burke v. See Burke v. McWhirter. 
 
 McWhirter v. Learmouth (1868), 18 U. C. C. P. 136 174, 175 
 
 McWhirter v. Thome (1869), 19 U. C. C. P. 302 348 
 
 Mead in re, ex parte Cochrane (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 282; 44 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 87; 32 L. T. 508; 23 W. R. 862 156, 157 
 
 Meader v. McKinnon, Campbell v. Patterson (1892), 21 S. C. R. 
 
 645 365,366 
 
 Meaford Manufacturing Co. re (1919), 46 O. L. R. 282 (Middle- 
 ton J. ) 135 
 
 Meek, Hope v. See Hope v. Meek. 
 
 Meguerditchian v. Lightbound (1917), 2 K. B. 298; 86 L. J. K. 
 
 B. 889; (1917), H. B. R. 176 669 
 
 Meir, Langley v. See Langley v. Meir. 
 
 Melbourne (1870), L. R. 6 Ch. 835; 25 L. T. N S. 368; 40 L. J. 
 
 Bank 28; 19 W. R. 83 414 
 
 Mellish ex parte, in re Stokes. See Stokes in re, ex parte Mel- 
 
 lish. 
 
 Melton in re, Milk v. Towers (1918), 1 Ch. 37 422, 424, 425, 446 
 
 Mercantile Mutual Marine Assoc, re (1883), 25 Ch. 415; 53 L J. 
 
 Ch. 593; 50 L. T. 150 421 
 
 Mercer v. Peterson (1868), L. R. 3 Ex. 304; 37 L. J. Ex. 54; 18 
 
 L. T. 30; 16 W. R. 486 .- 103,104 
 
 Mercer v. Vans Colina (1900), 1 Q. B. 130 N. S.; 67 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 424 (1897), 78 L. T. 21; 4 Man. 363 282, 310, 312, 313 
 
 Merchant Banking Co. ex parte, re Durham. See In re Durham, 
 
 ex parte Merchant Banking Co. 
 Merchants Bank, Mason v. Mason v. Merchants Bank. 
 Merchants Bank of Halifax v. Gillespie (1885), 10 S. C. R 312 26 
 Meriden Britannia Co. v. Braden (1894), 21 O. A R. 352 48 377 
 Merry & Son, Dulaney v. See Dulaney v. Merry & Son 
 Mersey Steel & Iron Co. v. Naylor & Co. (1884) 9 App C. 434; 
 
 51 L. J. Q. B. 576; 47 L. T. 369; (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 648; ■ 
 
 affd. (1884) 322 
 
 Mesham ex parte, re King. See King in re. ex parte Mesham. 
 
TABLE OF CA.S'/'JN. xc .jif 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Messenger in re. ex parte Calvert (1876), 3 Ch. D. 317; 45 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 134; 34 L. T. 920 268- 
 
 Metcalfe v. Metcalfe (1891), 43 Ch. D. 643; 59 L. J. Ch. 159; 
 
 61 L. T. 767; 38 W. R. 397 289 
 
 Metropolitan Bank v. Offord (1870), L. R. 10 Eq. 398 305 
 
 Metropolitan Bank v. Pooley (1885), 10 A. C. 210; 54 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 449; 33 W. R. 709; 53 L. T. 163 294 
 
 Mexican Santa Barbara ex parte, in re Perkins. See Perkins 
 
 in re, ex parte Mexican Santa Barbara. 
 Meyer ex parte, re Stephany. See Stephany in re, ex parte 
 
 Meyer. 
 
 Michael ex parte, in re (1891), 8 Mor. 305 98, 129, 594 
 
 Michell, Reg. v. See Reg. v. Michell. 
 
 Michie, Converse v. See Converse v. Michie. 
 
 Michigan Trust Co. v. Puget Sound, etc. (1918), 3 W. W. R. 273, 
 
 274 (B.C.) 557 
 
 Middlesborough Firebrick Co. in re (1885). 52 L. T. 98 560 
 
 .Middleton v. Pollock (1876), 2 Ch. D. 104. 108, 109 107, 111, 341 
 
 Midgley in re (1913), 108 L. T. 45 607 
 
 Mid-Kent Fruit Factory in re (1896), 1 Ch. 567; 65 L. J. Ch. . 
 
 250 ; 3 Mans. 59 321 
 
 Midland Banking Co. v. Chambers (1869), L. R. 4 Ch. 398; 38 
 
 L. J. Ch. 478; 20 L. T. 346 423 
 
 Miles ex parte (1814), 2 Rose 68 414 
 
 Miller re (1877), 1 O. A. R. 393 451, 452 
 
 Miller in re (1893), 10 Mor. 183 606 
 
 Miller in re (1901), 1 K. B. 51; 70 L. J. K. B. 1; 49 W. R. 65; 
 
 83 L. T. 545; 17 T. L. R. 9; 8 Man. 1 131 
 
 Miller in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 396 (Lamarre D. R.) 219 
 
 Miller in re, ex parte (1840), 1 M. D. & D. 39 261 
 
 Miller v. Hamlin (1882), 2. O. R. 103 128 
 
 Miller v. McCuaig (1901), 13 M. L. R. 220; 20 C. L. T. 27 102 
 
 Miller v. Reid. 29 C. P. 576; (1879). 4 O. A. R. 479 351, 366 
 
 Milligan, Gillard v. See Gillard v. Milligan. 
 
 Mills (1875), L. R. 8 Ch. 569 451 
 
 Mills in re (1888), 58 L. T. 871; 5 Mor. 55 34G 
 
 Mills in re, ex parte (1906), 1 K. B. 389; 75 L. J. K. B. 247; 94 
 
 L. T. 41; 54 W. R. 322; 13 Man. 9 98, 129 
 
 Mills ex parte re Manning. See Manning in re, ex parte Mills. 
 
 Mills v. Bennett (1814). 2 M. & S. 556 581 
 
 Mills, Wright v. See Wright v. Mills. 
 
 Mills Bawtree Co. re, ex parte Stannard (1893), 10 Mor. 193. 284 
 
 Mills Trust in re (1895) 2 Ch. 564; 64 L. J. Ch. 708; 73 L. T. 
 
 229; 44 W. R. 21; 2 Man. 479 63 
 
 Milne ex parte, re Batten. See In re Batten, ex parte Milne. 
 
 Milne. Toovey v. See Toovey v. Milne. 
 
 Milner ex parte and in re (1885). 15 Q. B. D. 605; 54 L J Q B 
 
 425: 53 L. T. 652; 33 W. R. 867; 2 Mor. 190 95, 98 
 
 Milward, Farnham v. See Farnham v. Milward. 
 
 Mimico Sewer Pipe and Brick Co. re Pearson's Case (1895) 
 
 26 O. R. 289 323, 413 
 
 Minnekahda Land Co., Marsden v. See Marsden v. Minnekahda. 
 Minor ex parte. Pollitt, in- re. See Pollitt in re, ex parte Minor. 
 
 Miquelon v. Vilandre (1914) 16 D. L. R. 316 464 
 
 Miravita, Simpson v. See Simpson v Miravita. 
 
 Mirfield Commercial Co ex parte, re Whitley. See Whitley in re, 
 
 ex parte Mirfield Commercial Co. 
 Mitchell in re, ex parte Cunningham (1884), 13 O. B. D. 423; 
 
 53 L. J. Ch. 1067; 31 L. T. 447; 33 W. R. 22; 1 Mor. 137. .61. 62 
 Mitchell, Bancroft v. See Bancroft v. Mitchell. 
 Mitchell. Cohen v. See Cohen v. Mitchell. 
 
 Mitchell v. Holland (1889), 16 S. C. R. 687 45 
 
 Mitchell, Jackman v. See Jackman v. Mitchell. 
 
 Mitchell v. McCauley (1892), 20 O. A. R. 272 482 
 
 Mittens v. Foreman 58 L. J. Q. B. 40 (1888) . . : 62? 
 
 Moffatt, Burland v. See Burland v. Moffatt 
 
xc iv TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Moir in re, ex parte (1882), 21 Ch. D. 61; 51 L. J. Ch. 931; 30 
 
 W. R. 738; 47 L. T. 267 496 
 
 Molineux ex parte (1835), 4 Dea. & C. 460 257 
 
 Molsons Bank, The v. Halter, 16 A. R. 323; (1890), 18 S. C. R. 88 
 
 159, 244, 347, 352 
 
 Monkman v. Sennot (1884), 3 M. L. R. 170 12 
 
 Monkhouse ex parte in re Ward. See Ward in re, ex parte 
 
 Monkhouse. 
 
 Montefiore v. Behrens (1866), L. R. 1 Eq. 171 288 
 
 Montefiore v. Guedalla, No. 1 (1901), 1 Ch. 435; 70 L. J. Ch. 180; 
 
 83 L. T. 735; 49 W. R. 269; 8 Man. 126 289, 309 
 
 Montgomery exparte (1822), 1 Gl. & J. 338 260, 261 
 
 Montgomery v. Corbit (1896) 24 O. A. R. 311 349 
 
 Montreal Bargain & Jobbing House in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 
 
 437 (Panneton, J.) . . .' 260 
 
 Montreal Co-Operative Bakery in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 377 
 
 ( Bruneau J.) 1 263 
 
 Montreal, Montreal Street Railway v. See Montreal Street Rail- 
 way v. Montreal. 
 Montreal v. Montreal Street Railway (1912), A. C. 333, 344.. 24, 177 
 Montreal Street Railway, Montreal v. See Montreal v. Montreal 
 
 Street Railway. 
 Montreal Street Railway v. Montreal (1910), 43 S. C. R. 197; 
 
 12 A. C. 333; 16 R. de J. 431 176 
 
 Montreal Trust Co., Carson & Co. v. See Carson Co. v. Montreal 
 
 Trust. 
 
 Moody v. Canadian Bank of Commerce (1891), 14 P. R. 258 325 
 
 Moojen in re, ex parte Bouchard (1879), 12 Ch. D. 26; 48 L. J. 
 
 K. B. 105; 41 L. T. 363; 28 W. R. 29 82 
 
 Moojin, Motion v. See Motion v. Moojin. 
 
 Moon ex parte, in re (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 669; 56 L. J. Q. B. 496; 
 
 35 W. R. 743; 4 Mor. 263 224 
 
 Moon in re, ex parte Dawes (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 275; 55 L. T. 
 
 114 ; 3 Mor. 105 214, 225, 288 
 
 Moon, Smith v. See Smith v. Moon. 
 
 Moor v. Anglo-Italian Bank (1879), 10 Ch. D. 681; 40 L T. 620; 
 
 27 W. R. 652 128. 164, 439, 441 
 
 Moore in re (1885), 2 Mor. 78 571 
 
 Moore in re, ex parte (1882), 51 L. J. Ch. 72; 45 L. T. 558; 30 
 
 W. R. 123 257,412 
 
 Moore in re, ex parte Ibbetson (1878), L. R. 8 Ch. D. 519; 39 L. 
 
 T. 1; 26 W. R. 843 70 
 
 Moore in re, v: Luce (1868), 18 U. C. C. P. 446 130, 139 
 
 Moore in re, ex parte Philps (1874), L. R. 19 Eq. 256; 44 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 40; 31 L. T. 735;* 23 W. R. 230 495 
 
 Moore ex parte, in re Branson. See In re Branson, ex parte 
 
 Moore. 
 Moore ex parte, in re Slobodinsky (1903), See Slobodinsky in 
 
 re, ex parte Moore. 
 Moore, Cochrane v. See Cochrane v. Moore. 
 Moore, Figg y. See Figg v. Moore. 
 Moore, Fry v.. See Fry v. Moore. 
 
 Moore v. Moore (1880), 13 N. S. R. (1 R. & G.) 525 . .5 
 
 Moorehouse v. Bostwick, 5 O. R. 104; (1885), 11 O. A R 76 . 470 
 Morgan re, ex parte Turner (1895), 73 L. T. 448; 44 W R 96; 
 
 2 Mans. 508 : ' 362 
 
 Morgan in re, ex parte Wilding (1895), 2 Mans. 526 ". '.'. . .... 240 
 
 Morgan v. Hill in re, Parker. See Parker, in re Morgan v. 
 
 Hill. 
 Morgan v. Steble (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 611; 47 L. J. Q. B. 260; 
 
 26 L. T. 906 298 
 
 Morgan v. Swansea Urban Sanitary Authority (1878), 9 Ch. D. 
 
 582 283 
 
 Morison & Co.. Ltd. in re (1912) , 106 L. T. 731 46,4 
 
 Morley in re, ex parte v. Scott (1887). 20 Q. B. D. 120; 57 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 43; 36 W. R. 67; 57 L .T. 919; 4 Mor. 286 58, 59 
 
TABLE OF CAXE8. XCV 
 
 1'AUE 
 
 Morley v. White (1872), L. R. 8 Ch. 21-1; 27 L. T. 736; 21 W. R. 
 
 132 564. 
 
 Morlock & Cline Ltd. re, ex parte Sarvis & Canning (1911). 18 
 
 0. W. N. 545; 2 0. W. N. 706; 23 0. L. R. 165 462, 464 
 
 Morris in re, ex parte Goding (1832), 1 D. & C. 323 . ." 260 
 
 Morris in re, exparte Streeter (1881), 19 Ch. D. 216; 45 L. T. 
 
 734 638 
 
 Morris in re James v. London & County Banking Co. (1899), 
 
 1 Ch. 485; 68 L. J. Ch. 299; 47 W. R. 324; 80 L. T. 37; 6 
 
 Man. 178 433, 441, 442 
 
 Morris, Green v. See Green v. Morris. 
 
 Morris v. Martin (1890), 19 0. R. 564 355 
 
 Morris v. Morris (1895), A. C. 625; 64 L. J. P. C. 136; 72 L. T. 
 
 879; 44 W. R. 65 , 349 
 
 Morris, Macfarlane v. See Macfarlane v. Morris. 
 
 Morris, National Bank of Australia v. See National Bank of 
 
 Australia v. Morris. 
 Morrison ex parte, in re Clunn. See Clunn in re, ex parte 
 
 Morrison. 
 Morrison, Dutton v. See Dutton v. Morrison. 
 Morrison, New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Co. v. See 
 
 New Zealand Loan Co. v. Morrison. 
 
 Morrison v. Watts (1892), 19 0. A. R. 622 256. 257, 412 
 
 Morrow v. Peterborough Water Co. (1902), 4 O. L. R. 324 394 
 
 Morter re, ex parte Nichols (1897), 76 L. T. 532 . . .213, 216, 223, 443 
 Mortimer in re, ex parte Pearson (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 667; 42 
 
 L. J. Bank. 44; 28 L. T. 786; 21 W. R. 688 101, 105, 119 
 
 Morton, Marchant v. See Marchant v. Morton. 
 
 Morton in re. ex parte Robertson (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 733; 44 
 
 L. J. Bank. 99 605 
 
 Moss in re, 1 Ch. D. 130 669 
 
 Moss in re, ex parte Hallett (1905), 2 K. B. 307; 74 L. J. K. B. 
 
 764; 92 L. T. 777; 53 W. R. 558; 12 Man. 227 422, 427 
 
 Moss ex parte, in re Toward. See Toward in re, ex parte Moss. 
 Motion re. Maule v. Davis (1873). L. R. 9 Ch. 192; 43 L. J. Bank. 
 
 59; 29 L. T. 757; 22 W. R. 225 258, 260, 552, 559 
 
 Motion v. Moojin (1872), L. R. 14 Eq. 202; 41 L. J. Ch. 596; 
 
 20 W. R. 861 294 
 
 Mottram, Walker v. See Walker v. Mottram. 
 
 Mowat v. Dominion Trust Co. (1915), 8 Sask. L. R. 404 560 
 
 Mucklow v. May (1809), 1 Taunt 479 113, 117 
 
 Muirhead ex parte and re (1876) 2 Ch. D. 22; 45 L. J. Bank 65; 
 
 34 L. T. 303; 24 W. R. 351 130, 420 
 
 Mulcahy v. Archibald (1898) , 38 S. C. R. 523 108 
 
 Mulligan, Sinclair v. See Sinclair v. Mulligan. 
 
 Mumford ex parte (1808), 15 Ves. 289 417 
 
 Munn v. Burn. See Crossley in re, Munn v. Burn. 
 
 M,unro v. Commercial Bldg. & Investment Society (1875), 36 
 
 U. C. Q. B. 464 478, 564 
 
 Munro, Haight v. See Haight v. Munro. 
 
 Munro v. Standard Bank of Canada (1913), 5 O. W. N -508; 
 
 16 D. L. R. 293; 30 O. L. R. 12 43, 102, 359, 370 
 
 Munro, Trusts & Guarantee Co. v. See Trusts & Guarantee Co. 
 
 v. Munro. 
 Murray, Leeming v. See Leeming v. Murray. 
 Murray v Elibank (1804), 10 Ves. 90; White and Tudor Vol. 1 
 
 P 654 293 
 
 Murray, Warner v. See Warner v. Murray. 
 
 Murray, Woodhouse v. See Woodhouse v. Murray. 
 
 Murrieta in re, ex parte South American Co. (1896), 3 Man. 35. 
 
 128, 136 
 Musgrave ex parte, in re Wood. See Wood in re, ex parte Mus- 
 
 grave. 
 Mutton in re ex parte Board of Trade (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 102; 
 
 56 L. J. Q. B. 395; 56 L. T. 802; 4 Mor. 180 527 
 
X( . v j TABLE OF CAKES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Mutual Loan, Roe v. See Roe v. Mutual Loan. 
 •Myers in re, ex parte (1908), 1 K. B. 941; 77 L, J. K. B. 386; 
 
 15 Mans. 85 97, 99, 416 
 
 My,nn, Lyde v. See Lyde v. Mynn. 
 
 Nail, Conway v. See Conway v. Nail. 
 
 Nanson v. Gordon (1876), 1 A. C. 195; 45 L. J. Bank. 89; 34 L. 
 
 T. 401 471 
 
 Nantel v. La Compagnie de Chemin de Fer de la Baie des Chal- 
 
 eurs (1896), Q. R. 5; Q. B. 64; Q. R, 6; S. C. 47 26 
 
 Napier ex parte (1875), 3 Pugs. 134 463 
 
 Napper v. "Fanshawe, in re Greer. See In re Greer, ex parte 
 
 Napper v. Fanshawe. 
 Nash, Boorman v. See Boorman v. Nash. 
 Nash, Reg. v. See Reg. v. Nash. 
 Nathan re, ex parte Stapleton (1879), 10 Ch. D. 586; 40 L. T. 
 
 14; 27 W. R. 327 t 301 
 
 National Bank of Australia v. Morris (1892), A. C. 287 347, 361 
 
 National Insce. Co. ex parte, re Hallett. See Hallett in re, ex 
 
 parte National Insce. Co. 
 
 National Live Stock Ins. Co. in re (1917), H. B. R. 119 392 
 
 National Prov. Bank of England ex parte, re Newton. See New- 
 ton in re, ex parte National Prov. Bank of England. 
 National Prov. Bank of England ex parte, re Sass. See Sass in 
 
 re, ex parte National Prov. Bank. 
 
 National Provincial v. United Electric (1916), 1 Ch. 132 83 
 
 National Shipbuilding Co., in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 430- 53 
 
 National Trust Co. v. Trusts & Guarantee Co. (1912), 26 O. L. R. 
 
 279: 22 O. W .R. 933; 5 D. L. R. 459 46, 162, 337 
 
 National Trusts v. Trusts Guarantee Co., in re Raven Lake 
 
 Portland Cement Co. See Raven Lake Portland Cement 
 
 Co. in re. 
 Navalchand ex parte, in re Gordon. See Gordon in re, ex parte 
 
 Navalchand. 
 Naylor & Co., Mersey Steel & Iron Co. v. See Mersey Steel & 
 
 Iron Co., v. Naylor & Co. 
 Naylor re, ex parte Stephenson (1893), 62 L. J. Q. B. 460; 69 
 
 L. T. 355; 10 Mor. 173 332. 370 
 
 Neal in re, ex Darte Trustee (1914), 2 K. B. 910; 83 L. J. K. B. 
 
 1118; 110 L. T. 988; 21 Man. 164; 58 S. J. 536 338 
 
 Neal ex parte, re Batey. See In re Batey, ex parte Neal. 
 
 Neale in re, 3 B. R. 177 198 
 
 Neck in re, ex Darte Broad (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 740; 54 L. J. Q. 
 
 B. 79; 51 L. T. 388; 32 W. R. 912 284 
 
 Nelles v. Bank of Montreal (1882), 7 O. A. R. 743 349 
 
 Nelles v. Maltby (1885), 5 O. R. 263 174 
 
 Nelligan, Gemmill v. See Gemmill v. Nelligan. 
 
 Nelson in re, ex parte Dolphin & Dore (1918), 1 K. B. 459. .536, 537 
 
 Nepean in re, ex parte Ramchund (1903), 1 K. B. 794; 72 L. J. , 
 
 K. B. 407; 88 L. T. 477; 51 W. R. 599; 10 Man. 156 220 
 
 Nepisiquit Lumber Co., Good v. See Good v. Nepisiquit Lumber 
 
 Co. • 
 Nepisiquit Lumber Co., Ltd., Harrison v. See Harrison v. Nepi- 
 siquit Lumber Co., Ltd. 
 Neville in re, ex parte White (1870), L. R. 6 Ch. 397; 40 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 73; 24 L. T. 45 448 
 
 New City Constitutional Club in re, ex parte Purssell (1887). 34 
 
 Ch. D. 646 ; 477, 480 
 
 New Land Development Assoc in re, ex parte Gray (1892). 2 
 
 Ch. 138; 61 L. J. Ch. 495; 66 L. T. 694; 40 W. R. 551 312, 374 
 
 New Par Consols Ltd in re (1898), 12 B 669 568 
 
 New Prance & Garrard's Trustee v. Hunting (1897) 2 Q B. 19: 
 
 1 Q. B. 607; 6fi L. J. Q. B. 554; 76 L. T. 742; 4 Mans. 103 
 
 107, 345. 346. 347 
 New Zealand Loan & Mercantile Agency Co. v. Morrison (1898). 
 
 A. C. 349; 67 L. J. P. C. 10; 46 W. R. 239; 77 L. T. 603; 5 
 
 Mans. 171 : 537 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 xc\ 11 
 
 TAGE 
 
 N<iwbouId, Samuel v. See Samuel v. Newbould. 
 
 Newby, Hood v. See Hood v. Newby. 
 
 Newey in re, ex parte Whiteman (1913), 107 L. T. 832; 57 Sol. 
 
 J. 174 133 
 
 Newitt ex parte, in re Garrud. See Garrud in re, ex parte New- 
 
 itt. 
 Newitt ex parte, re Mansel. See Mansel in re, ex parte Newitt. 
 Newland ex parte, re Clark. See In re Clark, ex parte Newland. 
 
 Newman in re (1876), 3 Ch. D. 494; 46 L. J. Bank. 57 427 
 
 Newman v. Brooke (1876), 3 Ch. D. 494; 46 L. J. Bank, 57; 25 
 
 W. R. 261 417 
 
 Newman re. ex parte Copper (1876), 4 Ch. D. 724; 46 L. J. Bank. 
 
 57; 35 L. T. 558 428 
 
 Newmark re (1862), 6 L. T. N. S. 755 521 
 
 Newspaper Proprietory Synd. Co. in re (1900), 2 Ch. 349; 69 
 
 L. J. Ch. 578; 83 L. T. 341; 8 Mans. 65 453, 463 
 
 Newton in xe, ex parte National Prov. Bank of England (1896), 
 
 2 Q. B. 403; 65 L. J. Q. B. 686; 75 L. T. 144; 3 Mans. 200. 443 
 Newton ex parte, re Bunyard. See In re Bunyard, ex parte 
 
 Newton. 
 Newton, Bank of Ottawa v. See Bank of Ottawa v. Newton. 
 
 Newton v. Ontario Bank (1867), 13 Gr. 652; 15 Gr. 283 174 
 
 Newton v. Seott (1842), 9 M. & W. 434; 10 M. & W. 471 485 
 
 Newton, Simpson v. See Simpson v. Newton. 
 
 Nicholas in re and ex parte (1890), 7 Mor. 54 ..519, 520, 528, 668 
 Nichols ex parte, in re Jones. See Jones in re, ex parte Nichols. 
 Nichols ex parte, in re Morter. See Morter in re, ex parte 
 
 Nichols. 
 Nichols ex parte, in re White. See White in re, ex parte Nichols. 
 Nichols to Nixey (1885), 29 Ch. D. 1005; 55 L. J. Ch. 146; 52 
 
 L,. TV 803 315 
 
 Nicholson in re, ex parte (1886), 3 Mor. 46 581 
 
 Nicholson v. Bower (1858), 1 E. & E. 172; 28 L. J. Q. B. 97.. 302 
 
 Nicholson v. Gunn (1874), 35 U. C. Q. B. 7 534 
 
 Nicholson, Standard Realty v. See Standard Realty v. Nichol- 
 
 sdn. 
 Nixey, Nichols to. See Nichols to Nixey. 
 Nixon, Engleback v. See Engleback v. Nixon. 
 Nixon, Sutherland v. See Sutherland v. Nixon. 
 Noble, Goodwin v. See Goodwin v. Noble. 
 
 Nolan v. Donnelly (1884), 4 O. R. 440 174 
 
 . Nordenfelt in re, ex parte Maxim (1895), 1 Q. B. 151- 64 L J 
 
 Q. B. 182; 71 L. T. 565; 2 Man. 20 C. A ' ' 61 
 
 Norfolk ex parte (1815), 19 Ves. 455 447 
 
 Norris in re, ex parte Reynolds (1888), 5 Mor. Ill 61 
 
 Norris ex parte, in re Sadler. See Sadler in re. ex parte Norris 
 North in re, ex parte Hasluck (1895), 2 Q. B. 264; 64 L J Q B 
 
 694; 72 L. T. 854; 2 Man. 326 119,' 132 
 
 North Australian in re (1890), 45 Ch. D. 87; 59 L. J. Ch. 654; 
 
 38 W. R. 561; 63 L. T. 77 508, 510, 592 
 
 North Eastern Insurance Co., Ltd., in re (1916), H. B. R. 154; 
 
 85 L. J. Ch. 751 611 
 
 North Eastern Railway Co., Jackson v. See Jackson v. North 
 
 Eastern Ry. Co. 
 North Kent Bank ex parte, in re Holdsworth. See Holdsworth 
 
 in re, ex parte North Kent Bank. 
 North West Theatre Co. v. Mackinnon (1916) 52 S. C R. 588 
 
 243, 485 
 Northern Bank, Tudhope v. See Tudhope v. Northern Bank. 
 
 Northern Commercial Co. v. Powell (1911) -17 W. L. R. 297 349 
 
 Northern Crown Bank, Townsend v. See Townsend v. Northern 
 
 Crown Bank. 
 Norton ex parte, in re Brail. See In re Brail, ex parte Norton. 
 
 n.c. — g 
 
xeviii TABLE OF oases. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Norton ex parte, in re Mansel. See Mansel in re, ex parte Nor- 
 ton. 
 Norvell ex parte, re Taylor. See Taylor in re, ex parte Norvell. 
 Norwich Fire Ins. Co. (1884), 27 Ch. D. 515; 54 L. J. Ch. 254; 
 
 51. L. T. 404 ' 50G 
 
 Nottingham ex parte, in re Tuff & Nottingham. See Tuff & 
 
 Nottingham in re, ex parte Nottingham. 
 
 Nunes v. Carter, L. R. 1 P. C. 342 347 
 
 Nunn, Williams v. See Williams v. Nunn. 
 
 Nurse in re, ex parte Foxley (1868), L. R. 3 Ch. 515; 18 L. T. 
 
 862; 16 W. R. 831 102,103 
 
 Nutt, Bourke v. in re Pulborough School Bd. See Pulborough 
 
 School Bd. in re, Bourke v. Nutt. 
 
 Nuthall, in re, Ford, v. Nuthall (1891), 8 Mor. 106 165 
 
 Nuttall, Lee v. See Lee v. Nuttall. 
 
 Oak Pits Colliery Co. in re (1882), 21 Ch. D. 322 479, 484 
 
 Oakley v. Bennett, 11 How (U. S.) 33 73 
 
 Oastler ex parte, re Freedlander. See Freedlander in- re, ex 
 
 parte Oastler. 
 Oatway in re (1903), 2 Ch. 356; 72 L. J. Ch. 575; 88| L. T. 622. 285 
 
 O'Brien in re (1883), 11 Ir. L. R. 213 69 
 
 O. S. C. in re (1904), 2 K. B. 161; 73 L. J. K. B. 585; 11 Man. 
 
 122 606 
 
 O'Callaghan v. Cowan (1877), 41 U. C. Q. B. 272 45 
 
 Official Assignee, Commercial Bank of Australia v. See Com- 
 mercial Bank of Australia v. Official Assignee. 
 O. R. ex parte, in re Abbott. See Abbott in re, ex parte O. R. 
 O. R. ex parte, in re Arnold. See Arnold in re, ex parte O. R. 
 O. R. ex parte, in re Arnott. See Arnott in re, ex parte O. R. 
 Official Receiver ex parte, re Beall. See In re Beall, ex parte 
 
 Official Receiver. 
 O. R. ex parte, in re Bennett. See In re Bennett, ex parte 0. R. 
 Official Receiver ex parte, re Betts. See In re Betts, ex parte 
 
 Official Receiver. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Billing. See Billing in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, re Burnett. See Burnett in re, ex parte O. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Cohen. See Cohen in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Cullwick. See Cullwick in re, ex parte O. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Cunningham. See Cunningham in re, ex 
 
 parte 0. R. 
 Official Receiver ex parte, in re Dawes. See In re Dawes, ex 
 
 parte Official Receiver. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Debtor. See Debtor in re ex parte O. B 
 Official Receiver ex parte, re Duncan. See In re Duncan ex 
 
 parte O. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Dunn. See Dunn in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Everson. See Everson in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 Official Receiver ex parte, re Flatau. See In re Flatau, ex parte 
 
 O. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Ford. See In re Ford, ex parte O. R. 
 Official Receiver ex parte, re Foster. See In re Foster, ex parte 
 
 O. R. 
 Official Receiver ex parte, in re Frost. See In re Frost, ex parte 
 
 Official Receiver. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Gordon. See Gordon in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Graydon. See Graydon in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 O. R. ex parte, in re Greaves. See Greaves in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 O. R. ex parte, in re Hall. See Hall in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 Official Receiver ex parte, re Hawkins. See Hawkins in re, ex 
 
 parte O. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Hobbins. See Hobbins in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 Official Receiver ex parte, in re Holden. See Holden in re, ex 
 
 parte 0. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Izod. See Izod in re, ex parte Official 
 
 Receiver. 
 
TABLE OF CA.S1CS. x(: i x 
 
 PAGE 
 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Jukes. See Jukes in re, "ex parte 0. R. 
 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Keet. See Keet in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 
 0. R. ex parte, re Lawrence & Porter. See Lawrence & Porter 
 
 in re, ex parte 0. R-. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Mander. See Mander in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Mayne. See Mayne in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re McGrath. See McGrath in re, ex parte 
 
 0. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Pearce. See Pearce in re, ex parte O. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Phillips. See Phillips in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Pickard. See Pickard in re ex parte 0. R. 
 Official Receiver ex parte, re Prigoshen. See Prigoshen in re, 
 
 ex parte Official Receiver. 
 O. R, ex parte, re Richards. See Richards in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 Official Receiver ex parte, re Ryley. See Ryley in re, ex parte 
 
 O. R. 
 Official Receiver ex parte, re Salmon. See Salmon in re, ex 
 
 parte 0. R. 
 Official Receiver ex parte, re Spalding. See Spalding in re, ex 
 
 parte O. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Stephenson. See Stephenson in re, ex 
 
 parte 0. R. 
 Official Receiver ex parte, re Summers. See Summers in re, ex 
 
 parte O. R. 
 Official Receiver ex parte, re Tankard. See Tankard in re, ex 
 
 parte O. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Thurlow. See Thurlow in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Trehearne. See Trehearne in re, ex parte 
 
 O. R. 
 Official Receiver ex parte, re Tyler. See Tyler in re, ex parte 
 
 O. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, re Wayman. See Wayman in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Webster. See Webster in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Weighill. See Weighill in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Weinberg. See Weinberg in re, ex parte 
 
 O. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, re Wells & Croft. See Wells & Croft in re, ex 
 
 parte 0. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Wendt. See Wendt in re, ex parte 0. R. 
 O. R. ex parte, re White & Co. See White & Co. in re, ex parte 
 
 0. R. 
 Official Receiver ex parte, in re Whitlock. See Whitlock in re, 
 
 ex parte O. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Williams. See Williams in re, ex parte 
 
 O. R. 
 0. R. ex parte, in re Arthur Williams. See Williams (Arthur) 
 
 in re, ex parte O. R. 
 Official Receiver v. Cooke (1906), 2 Ch. 661; 75 L. J. Ch. 757; 
 
 13 Man. 337 312, 374 
 
 O. R., Tailby v. See Tailby v. Official Receiver. 
 
 Ogle ex parte, in re Pilling: See Pilling in re, ex parte Ogle. 
 
 Ogden v. Saunders (1827), 12 Wheat 212 3 
 
 O'Loghen ex parte (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 406; 40 L. J. Bank. 23.. 653 
 
 Oliphant, Wadling v. See Wadling v. Oliphant. 
 
 Oliver ex parte, in re Hodgson. See Hodgson in re, ex parte 
 
 Oliver. 
 Oliver, Beemer v. See Beemer v. Oliver. 
 
 Oliver v. McLaughlin (1893) , 24 O. R. 41 47. 108, 109 
 
 Oliver, Reg. v. See Reg. v. Oliver. 
 
 Olson v. Machin (1912), 23 0. W. R. 531; 4 0. W. N. 287; 8 
 
 D. L. R. 188 463 
 
 O'Neil, Farrell v. See Farrell v. O'Neil. 
 
 Onslow in re, ex. parte Kibble (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 373; 44 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 63; 32 L. T. 138; 23 W. R. 423 57, 127, 133, 488 
 
 Ontario Bank in re (1917) , 38 0. L. R. 242 554 
 
 Ontario Bank in re (1917) , 12 O. W. N. 245 593 
 
c TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Ontario Bank, Newton v. See Newton v. Ontario Bank. 
 
 Ontario Bank v. Routhier (1900), 32 O. R. 67 324 
 
 Ontario Bank v. Wilcox (1878), 43 U. C. Q. B. 460 45 
 
 Ontario Express and Transportation Co., Harte v. Molsons 
 
 Bank Claim. See Harte v. Ont. Express and Transportation 
 
 Co., Molsons Bank Claim. 
 Ontario Express and Transportation Co. in re, Hart and. See 
 
 Harte and Ontario Express and Transportation Co. in re. 
 Ontario Express & Transportation Co. in re Stephens v. Gerth 
 
 (1895), 24 S. C. R. 716 595 
 
 Ontario Fire Insurance Co. in re Heighington's Case (1915), 10 
 
 W. W. R. 911 823 
 
 Ontario Forge & Bolt Co. re, Townsend's Case (1896), 27 O. R. 
 
 230 : 464 
 
 Ontario Loan & Debenture Co., Hobbs v. See Hobbs v. Ont. 
 
 Loan & Debenture Co. 
 Ontario Seed Co., Stecher Lithographic Co. v. See Stetcher 
 
 Lithographic Co. v. Ontario Seed Co. 
 Oppenheimer, McNabb v. See McNabb v. Oppenheimer. 
 
 Oppenheimer v. Russell (1832), 3 B. & P. 53, 54 85 
 
 Oram ex parte, re Watson & Smith. See Watson & Smith in re, 
 
 ex parte Oram. 
 Orbell re ex parte Evans (1881), 44 L. T. 762; 29 W. R. 573; 
 
 44 L. T. 762; 43 L. T. 575 395., 624, 625, 626 
 
 Orde ex parte, in re Horsley. See Horsley in re, ex parte Orde. 
 O'Reardon in re, ex parte James (1873), L. R. 9 Ch. 74; 43 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 13; 22 W. R. 196; 29 L. T. 71 587 
 
 O'Reilly v. O'Reilly (1910), 21 O. L. R. 201; 16 O. W. R. 75; 
 
 affd. sub. nom. Garland, Son & Co. v. O'Reilly (1911), 44 
 
 S. C. R. 197 ; 16 O. W. R. 75 451 
 
 O'Reilly v. Rose (1871), 18 Gr. 33 260 
 
 Oriental Bank Corp., The, Hoare v. See Hoare v. Oriental Bank- 
 ing Corp. 
 Oriental Bank v. Richer (1884), 9 A. C. 413; 53 L J. P. C. 62.. 605 
 Oriental Commercial Bank in re, ex parte The European Bank 
 
 (1871-2), L. R. 7 Ch. 99; 41 L. J. Ch. 217; 25 L. T. 648. .421, 422 
 Oriental Hotels Co., Perry v. Oriental Hotels Co. (1871), L. R. 
 
 12 Eq. 126 262 
 
 Orillia Export Lumber Co. v. Burson (1903), 2 O. W. R. 1110. . . 240 
 Ormiston ex parte, in re Diston. See In re Djston, ex parte 
 
 Ormiston. 
 Ormston in re, ex parte Dodd (1876), 3 Ch. D. 452; 25 W. R 182. 656 
 
 Oro Fino Mines Ltd. in re (1900), 7 B. C. R. 388 651 
 
 Orpen, Beswich v. Orpen (1880), 16 Ch. D. 202; 50 L. J. Ch. 25; 
 
 43 L. T. 728; 29 W. R. 467 445, 544 
 
 Osborn, Smith v. See Smith v. Osborn. 
 
 Osborne in re, ex parte Lovell (1895), 43 Sol. J. 480 579 
 
 Osborne ex parte, in re Parr. See Parr in re, ex parte Osborne. 
 
 Osborne v. Adams, 18 Pick. (Mass.). 245 73 
 
 Osborne, 'Silk v. See Silk v. Osborne. 
 
 O'Shea's Settlement in re (1895), 1 Ch. 325; 64 L J. Ch. 263; 
 
 71 L. T. 827; 2 Mans. 4 357, 362, 367 
 
 O'Sullivan in re, ex parte Bailer (1892), 61 L. J. Q. B. 228; 
 
 66 L. T. 619 ; 67 L. T. 464 92, 302 
 
 Oswell in re, ex parte Bd. of Trade (1892), 9 Mor. 202 519, 522 
 
 Ottawa Porcelain and Carbon Company in re (1900), 31 O R. 
 
 679 438 
 
 Ottawa Separate School Trustees, Mackell v. See Mackell v 
 
 Ottawa Separate School Trustees. 
 Ottawa Trust and Deposit Co., Bell v. See Bell v. Ottawa Trust 
 
 and Deposit Co. 
 
 Ottoman Co. Ltd. in re (1867) , 15 W. R. 1069 509 
 
 Otway in re and ex parte (1895), 1 Q. B 812; 64 L. J. Ch. 521; 
 
 72 L. T. 452; 2 Man. 174 • 138 
 
 Oughton v. Trotter, 2 Nev. & Man 71 429 
 
 Ouimet v. Tees et al., 5 L. R. 483 556 
 
TABLE OF ('MSEX. ,.j 
 
 P.MiK 
 
 Owen in re and ex parte (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 113; 63 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 863; 56 L. T. 514; 1 Mor. 93 470, 578 
 
 Pag ex parte, in re Semenza. See Semenza in re, ex parte Pag. 
 
 Page in re and ex parte (1821), 1 G. L. & J. 100 130 
 
 Page in re and ex parte (1876), 2 Ch. D. 323 409 
 
 Page ex parte, in re Goldburg. See Goldburg in re, ex parte Page. 
 Page ex parte, in re Springall. See Springall in re, ex parte 
 
 Page. 
 
 Paine in re, ex parte (1891), W. N. 208 222 
 
 Paine in re, ex parte Read (1897), 1 Q. B. 122; 66 L. J. Q. B. 71; 
 
 75 L. T. 316; 45. W. R. 190; 3 Man. 309 ,355, 420 
 
 Painter in re, ex parte (1895), 1 Q. B. 85; 64 L. J. Q. B. 22; 71 
 
 L. T. 581; 43 W. R. 144; 1 Man. 499 541 
 
 Palmer in re, ex parte Richdale (1881), 19 Ch. D. 409; 51 L. J. 
 
 Ch. .462 ; 30 W. R. 262 ; 46 L. T. 116 364.365, 366, 367 
 
 Palmer ex parte, in re Badham. See In re Badham, ex parte 
 
 Palmer. 
 
 Palmer v. Baker (1871), 22 U. C. C. P. 59. 534 
 
 Palmer, Commissioners of Taxation for N'.S.W. v. See Com. of 
 
 Taxation v. Palmer. 
 Palmer v. Day (1895), 1 Q. B. 618; 64 L. J. Q. B. 807; 44 W. R. 
 
 14 ; 2 Man. 386 321 
 
 Palmer. Doe v. Andrews. See Doe Palmer v Andrews. 
 Palmer v. Locke (1881), 18 Ch. D. 381, 385. 386; 51 L. J. Ch. 124; 
 
 45 L. T. 229 ; 30 W. R. 419 41,42, 309 
 
 Palter, Langley v. See Langley v. Palter 
 
 Pannell in re, ex parte Bates (1879), 11 Ch. D. 914; 48 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 113 ; 41 L. T. 263 ; 27 W. R. 927 420 
 
 Pannell ex parte, in re Burr. See In re Burr, ex parte Pannell. 
 Pannell ex parte, in re England. See England in re, ex parte 
 
 Pannell. 
 Pannell ex parte, in re Jamieson. See Jamieson in re, ex parle 
 
 Pannell. 
 Papps, Davidson v. See Davidson v. Papp?. 
 
 Paquette Ltd. in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 445 (Delisle, R.) 606 
 
 Parent v. Trudel (1887) , 13 Q. L. R. 136 20 
 
 Parfitt in re, ex parte Board of Trade (1889), 23 Q. B D. 40; 
 
 58 L. J. Q. B. 428; 61 L. T. 88; 37 W. R. 751; 6 Mor. 166.574. 6 48 
 Paris-Orleans Ry. Co. ex parte, in re Scott. See Scott in re, ex 
 
 parte Paris-Orleans Ry. 
 Park, Krehl v. See Krehl v. Park. 
 
 Parke v. Day (1875), 24 U. C. C. P. 619 178, 521, 634 
 
 Parker in re, ex parte Dann (1881), 17 Ch. D. 26; 51 L. J. Ch 
 
 290 ; 44 L. T. 760 ; 29 W. R. 771 .' 104 
 
 Parker in re, Morgan v. Hill (1894), 3 Ch. 400; 64 L. J. Ch 6; 
 
 71 L. T. 557 423, 425 
 
 Parker ex parte in re Howe. See Howe in re, ex parte Parker. 
 Parker, Kinsman v. See Kinsman v. Parker. 
 
 Parker v. Lyon (1888), 5 T. L. R. 10 .' . . . 87 
 
 Parker, Stones v. See Stones v. Parker. 
 
 Parker & Young ex parte, in re Holland. See Holland in re, 
 
 ex parte Parker & Young. 
 Parkers in re, ex parte Sheppard (1887), 19 Q -B D 84- 56 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 338; 57 L. T. 198; 4 Mor. 135 417, '449, 467 
 
 Parkes, Bertr'and v. See Bertrand v. Parkes. 
 
 Parkes ex parte, in re Rayment. See Rayment in re, ex parte • 
 
 Parkes. 
 
 Parkes v. St. George (1882), 2 O. R. 342, 347 "45 
 
 Parkes v. St. George (1884), 10 O. A. R. 496 [ . .45 
 
 Parkin Elevator Co., Ltd., in re Dunsmoor's Claim (1916) 37 
 
 O. L. R. 277 453, 462 
 
 Parkinson in re, ex parte Plant (1893), 9 T. L. R. 388 597 
 
 Parlee v. Agricultural Insurance Co. (1876), 3 Pugsley 476. .171, 203 
 Parnell in re, ex parte Barren (1875), L. R. 10 Ch 512- 44 L J 
 
 Bank. 138; 23 W. R. 846; 33 L. T. 115 '. 102 304 
 
 Parnham's Trusts in re (1872), L. R. 13 Eq. 413; 41 L j Ch' 
 
 292; 20 W. R. 396 ....' '.......' 289 
 
c ii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Parr ex parte, in re Leigh. See Leigh in re ex parte Parr. 
 
 Parr in re, Osborne ex parte (1813), 2 V. & B. 177; 1 Rose 387. . 113 
 
 Parsons ex parte, in re Cook. See In re Cook, ex parte Parsons. . 
 
 1 Parsons v. Stockley, in re Parsons (1890), 45 Ch. D. 51 290 
 
 Partridge v. Rodesia Gold Fields Ltd. (1910), 1 Ch. 239; 79 
 
 L. J. Ch. 133 392 
 
 Pasley, Lempriere v. See Lempriere v. Pasley. 
 
 Pat Caramel Co., Gonville's Trustee v. See Gonville's Trustee 
 
 v. Pat Caramel Co. 
 Patent Cloth-board Co. in re, ex parte Bank of Ottawa (1903), 
 
 3 0. W. R. 393 424 
 
 Patent Lionite Co., Thomas v. See Thomas v. Patent Lionite Co. 
 Paterson ex parte, in re Rathbone. See Rathbone in re, ex parte 
 
 Paterson. 
 Pathe Preres ex parte, in re Worthington (1914). See Worth- 
 
 ington in re, ex parte Path6 Freres. 
 Patterson, Campbell v. See Meader v. McKinnon. 
 
 Patterson v. McCarthy (1874), 35 U. C. B. 14 189 
 
 Paul, Thibaudeau v. See Thibaudeau v. Paul. 
 
 Payne in re, ex parte Castle Mail Packet Co. (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 
 
 154; 35 W. R. 89; 3 Mor. 270 395, 519, 524 
 
 Pawson in re, ex parte Trustee (1917), 2 K. B. 527; 86 L. J. 
 
 K. B. 1285; (1917), H. B. R. 87 408 
 
 Payne ex parte, in re Cross. See In re Cross, ex parte Pavne. 
 Payne ex parte, in re Sinclair. See Sinclair in re, ex parte 
 
 Payne. 
 
 Payne v. Dickin (1871), 24 L. T. 492 294 
 
 Payne v. Hendry (1873), 20 Gr. 142 348 
 
 Peacock in re and ex parte (1872), L. R. 8 Ch. 682; 42 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 78 417, 428 
 
 Peak, Shields v. See Shields v. Peak. 
 
 Peake ex parte, 2 Rose 54 468 
 
 Peake, Carruthers v. See Carruthers v. Peake. 
 
 Peaker, Blain v. See Blain v. Peaker. 
 
 Pearce in re (1909), 2 Ch. 492; 78 L. J. Ch. 628; 16 Mans. 191. 
 
 433, 442, 543, 544 
 Pearce ex parte in re Grieves. See Grieves in re, ex parte 
 
 Pearce. 
 
 Pearce in re, ex parte O. R. (1919) , 1 K. B. 354 82 
 
 Pearce v. Bastable's Trustee (1901), 2 Ch. 122; 70 L. J. Ch. 446; 
 
 84 L. T. 525; 17 T. L. R. 366; 8 Man. 287 303 
 
 Pearce v. Bullard, King & Co. (1908), 1 Ch. 780; 77 L. J. Ch. 
 
 340; 52 Sol. J. 301; 98 L. T. 527 -544 
 
 Pearce v. Bulteel (1916) , 2 Ch. 544 .108 
 
 Pearce's Trusts in re (1909), 2 Ch. 492; 78 L. J. Ch. 628; 100 
 
 L. T. 792; 16 Man. 191 455 
 
 Pearcy in re, ex carte Sturt (1871), L. R. 13 Eq. 309; 41 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 12; 20 W. R. 200 130 
 
 Peard, Luddy's Trustee v. See Luddy's Trustee v. Peard. 
 
 Pearse in re (1913), 107 L. T. 859 ; 519, 522 
 
 Pearson in re (1892), 2 Q. B. 263; 61 L. J. Q. B. 585; 67 L. T-. 
 
 367; 40 W. R. 532; 2 Mor. 185 71, 75 
 
 Pearson in re, ex parte West Cannock Colliery Co. (1886), 3 Mor. 
 
 187 . . . . ....119, 120 
 
 Pearson in re, Smith v. Pearson (1920), 1 Ch. 247; 89 L. J. Ch. 
 
 123; (1920), B. & C. R. 38 314 
 
 Pearson ex parte, in re Mortimer. See Mortimer in re, ex parte 
 
 Pearson. 
 Pearson, Brooke v. See Brooke v. Pearson. 
 Pearson, Lloyds Bank v. See Lloyds Bank v. Pearson. 
 Pearson, Ross Bros. v. See Ross Bros. v. Pearson. 
 Pearson's Case, Re Mimico Sewer Pipe and Brick Mfg. Co. See 
 
 Mimico Sewer Pipe and Brick Co., in re Pearson's Case. 
 
 Pease, ex parte, 1 Rose 232 550 
 
 Pease ex parte, in re Boldero. See Boldero in re, ex parte Pease. 
 Peel in re (1903) , 19 T. L. R. 207 620 
 
TABLE Oh' (WHKK. ,.jji 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Peller in re, ex parte Furber (1877), 6 Ch. D. 181; 36 L. T. 668. 
 
 101, 106 
 Pendry, Bertram v. See Bertram v. Pendry. 
 Penhall, Colombine v. See Colombine v. Penhall. 
 
 Pennell v. Reynolds (1861), 11 C. B. N. S. 709; 5 L. T. 286 103 
 
 Pennell v. Stephens (1849), 7 C. B. 987; 18 L. J. C. P. 291 362 
 
 Pennington in re, ex parte (1888), 59 L. T. 774; 5 Mor. 268. 
 
 108, 331, 508 
 Penny, Holmes v. See Holmes v. Penny. 
 
 People's Trust Co., Doctor v. See Doctor v. People's Trust Co. 
 Perkins in re, ex parte Mexican Santo Barbara (1890), 24 Q. B. 
 
 D. 613; 59 L. J. Q. B. 226; 38 W. R. 710; 7 Mor. 32 88 
 
 Perkins in re Poyser v. Beyfus (1898), 2 Ch. 182; 67 L. J. Ch. 
 
 454; 78 L. T. 666; 46 W. R. 595; 5 Mans. 193 260, 295 
 
 Perkins v. Ross, 6 Q. L. R. 65 (Q.B.) 320 
 
 Perrier ex parte, in re Tanenberg. See Tanenberg in re, ex 
 
 parte Perrier. 
 Perrin, Cameron v. See Cameron v. Perrin. 
 Perrin, Fowler v. See Fowler v. Perrin. 
 Perritt, Crispe v. See Crispe v. Perritt. 
 
 Perry in re (1866) , 2 U. C. L. J. (N.S.) 75 521 
 
 Perry, Davidson v. See Davidson v. Perry. 
 
 Perry, Griffiths v. See Griffiths v. Perry. 
 
 Perry, Oriental Hotels Co. v. See Oriental Hotels Co. in re, 
 
 Perry v. Oriental Hotels Co. 
 Person Aggrieved ex parte, in re Debtor. See Debtor in re. 
 
 ex parte Person Aggrieved. 
 Peterman, Baldwin v. See Baldwin v. Peterman. 
 
 Peters in re, ex parte Lloyd (1882), 47 L. T. 64 395 
 
 Peters v. Fleming (1840), 6 M. & W. 42; 9 L. J. Ex. 81 56 
 
 Peters, Reg. v. See Reg. v. Peters. 
 
 Peterson, Mercer v. See Mercer v. Peterson. 
 
 Petrie, Davis v. See Davis v. Petrie. 
 
 Pett, Attwood v. See Attwood v. Pett. 
 
 Pewtress, Martin v. See Martin v. Pewtress. 
 
 Philips ex parte, in re Moore. See Moore in re, ex parte Philips. 
 
 Phillips in re, ex parte Barton (1900), 2 Q. B. 329; 69 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 604; 82 L. T. 691; 49 W. R. 16; 7 Man. 277. . . .94, 102, 605 
 Phillips in re, ex parte Bath (1882), 22 Ch. D. 450; 48 L. T. 293; 
 
 31 W. R. 281 455 
 
 Phillips in re, ex parte O. R. (1914), 2 K. B. 689; 83 L. J. K. B. 
 
 1364; 110 L. T. 939; 58 Sol. J. 364; 21 Man. 144 143, 248, 
 
 291 313 375 
 
 Phillips in re, ex parte Trustee (189H), 2 Mans. 206 '.....' 579 
 
 Phillips ex parte (1888), 36 W. R. 567 416 
 
 Phillips ex parte, in re Harvey. See Harvey in re, ex parte 
 
 Phillips. 
 
 Phillips v. Allan (1828), 8 B. & C. 477 537 
 
 Phillips, Bowerman v. See Bowerman v. Phillips. 
 
 Phillips v. Canada Cork' Co. (1905), 7 Que. P. R. 223 561 
 
 Phillips v. Dieas (1812) , 15 Bast. 248 217 
 
 Phillips v. Hunter (1795), 2 H. Bl. 402; affirming Hunter v. 
 
 Potts (1791), 4 T. R. 182 71, 74, 354 
 
 Phillips La Vie v. See La Vie v. Phillips. 
 
 Phillips v. Phillips, 3 Hare 281 429 
 
 Phillips v. Sherville (1845), 6 Q. B. 944; 9 Jur. 179 485 
 
 Phillips' Trusts in re (1903), 1 Ch. 183; 72 L. J. Ch. 94; 88 
 
 L. T. 9 311 
 
 Philpott, Bird v. See Bird v. Philpott. 
 
 Philps v. Hornstedt (1875), L. R. 8 Ex. 26; 1 Ex. 62; 42 L. J 
 
 Ex. 12 ; 21 W. R. 174 102 
 
 Philps v. McDonald, 16 Nat. Bank Reg. 217 73 
 
 Phoenix Bessemer Steel Co. ex parte, in re Carnforth Iron Co. 
 
 See In re Carnforth Iron Co., ex parte Phoenix Bessemer 
 
 Steel Co. 
 Pickard in re, ex parte O. R. (1912), 1 K. B. 397; 19 Man. 58; 
 
 56 S. J. 144; 81 L. J. K. B. 330 497, 498 
 
civ- TABLE OV CASKS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Pickering in re, ex parte Harding (1854), 5 D. M. & G. -367; 
 
 23 L. J. Bank. 22 417 
 
 Pickles, Wadsworth v. See Wadsworth v. Pickles. 
 
 Pierce, Reg. v. See Reg. v. Pierce. 
 
 Piers in re and ex parte (1898), 1 Q. B. 627; 67 L. J. Q. B. 519; 
 
 78 L. T. 314; 46 W. R. 475; 5 Man. 97 <. 408 
 
 Pigou ex parte (1818), 3 Madd. 136 433 
 
 Pigeon v. Martin (1875), 25 U. C. C. P. 233 215, 224 
 
 Pike v. Stevens (1848), 12 Q. B. 465; 17 L. J. Q. B. 282 362 
 
 Pilet in re, ex parte Toursier (1915), 3 K. B. 579; 84 L. J. K. B. 
 
 2133; (1915), H. B. R. 149 489 
 
 Pilling in re, ex parte Surtee's Executors (1909), 2 K. B. 788; 
 
 78 L. J. K. B. 390; 100 L. T. 378; 16 Man. 91 490 
 
 Pilling in re, ex parte Board of Trade (1903), 2 K. B. 50; 72 L. J. 
 
 K. B. 392; 88 L. T. 667; 51 W. R. 465; 10 Man. 142. .218, 220, 222 
 
 Pilling in re, ex parte Chapman (1906), 94 L. T. 682 490 
 
 Pilling in re, ex parte Ogle (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 711; 42 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 99 ; 21 W. R. 938 246 
 
 Pilling in re, ex parte Salaman (1906), 2 K. B. 644; 75 L. J. 
 
 K. B. 739; 95 L. T. 362; 13 Man. 229 269 
 
 Pilling v. Stewart et al. (1895), 4 B. C. R. 94 286 
 
 Pinfold in re, ex parte (1892), 1 Q. B. 73; 61 L. J. Q. B. 161; 
 
 . 65 L. T. 683 ; 40 W. R. 223 ; 8 Mor. 312 137 
 
 Piper, Cradock v. See Cradock v. Piper. 
 
 Pitts v. Lafontaine (1880), 6 A. C. 482; 5 L. J. P. C. 8; 43 L. T. 
 
 519 263, 397 
 
 Pixley ex parte, in re Harvey. See Harvey in re, ex parte Pixley. 
 Pixley ex parte, in re Snyder. See Snyder in re, ex parte Pixley. 
 Plant ex parte, in re Parkmion. See Parkmion in re, ex parte 
 
 Plant. 
 
 Plante v. Dalmas Pulp Co. (1914), 20 D. L. R. 983 562 
 
 Player in re, ex parte Harvey (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 682; 54 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 554 ; 2 Mor. 265 329 
 
 Plitt ex parte, in re Brown. See In re Brown, ex parte Plitt. 
 Plowder ex parte, in re Hutchinson. See Hutchinson in re, 
 
 ex parte Plowder." 
 Plumer in re (1900), 2 Q. B. 790; 69 L. J. Q. B. 936; 83 L. T. 387; 
 
 48 W. R. 634 ; 7 Mans. 367 329 
 
 Plumer, Taylor v. See Taylor v. Plumer. 
 
 Plummer, re, in re Lake Superior Native Copper Co. See In re 
 
 Lake Superior Native Copper Co., re Plummer. 
 Plummer v. Sullivan Machinery Co. (19l7), 24 B. C. R. 104; 
 
 2 W. W. R. 229 157 
 
 Plummer and Wilson in re (1841), 1 Phil. 56 438 
 
 Pogose in re, ex parte Vanderlinder (1882), 20 Ch. D. 289; 51 
 
 L. J. Ch. 760; 47 L. T. 106; 30 W. R. 930 605 
 
 Pogose, Mackintosh v. See Mcintosh v. Pogose. 
 
 Pollard ex parte, in re (1903), 2 K. B. 41; 72 L. J. K. B 509; 
 
 88 L. T. 476; 51 W. R. 432; 10 Man. 152. .61, 81, 140, 187, 188, 364 
 Pollard in re, ex parte Dickin (1878), 8 Ch. D. 377; 48 L J. 
 
 Bank. 36; 38 L. T. 860; 26 W. R. 731 552, 565 
 
 Pollitt.. in re. Minor, ex parte (1893), 1 Q. B. 455; 62 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 236; 10 Mor. 35 145 
 
 Pollock, Middleton v. See Middleton v. Pollock. 
 
 Pollock & Pendle in re, ex parte Wilson & Mathieson (1902), 
 
 8' L. T. 238; 18 T. L. R. 794 189 
 
 Ponsforrt. Baker & Co. v. Union of London Bank (1906), 2 Ch. 
 
 444; 75 L. J. Ch. 724; 95 L. T. 333; 13 Man. 321 144, 148, 
 
 157, 358. 360, 366 
 Ponsford v. Walton (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 167; 37 L. J. C. P 113: 
 
 19 L. T. 511 ; 16 W. R. 363 175 
 
 Pontbriand Co. v. Cosky (1912) . 14 Que. P. R. 19 591 
 
 Poole in re, ex parte Cocks (1882), 21 Ch. D. 397; 52 L. J Ch. 
 
 63 ; 47 L. T. 490 409 
 
 Poole ex parte (1790), 1 Ves. Jr. 160 550 
 
 Poole, Barnett v. See Barnett v. Poole. 
 Poole, Crofton v. See Crofton v. Poole. 
 
TABLE OF r.l.S7','N. ,-\ 
 
 FACE 
 
 Pooley in re, ex parte Harper (1882), 20 Ch. D. 685; 51 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 810; 47 L. T. 177; 30 W. R. 650 132, 138, 268, 397 
 
 Pooley in re, ex parte Rabbidge (1878), 8 Ch. D. 367; 48 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 15; 38 L. T. 663; 26 W. R. 646 158. 303, 311, 365 
 
 Pooley in re, ex parte Sheard (1880), 16 Ch. D. 107; 44 L. T. 259. 240 
 Pooley, Metropolitan Bank v. See Metropolitan Bank v* Pooley. 
 Pooley v. Quilter (1858), 2 DeG. & J. 327; 27 L. J. Ch. 374; 4 Jur. 
 
 N. S. 345 256 
 
 Pooley's Trustees v. Whetham (1884), No. 1; 28 Ch. D. 38; 
 
 54 L. J. Ch. 182; 51 L. T. 195; 33 W. R. 423 264, 300 
 
 Pope & Owles ex parte, in re Clark. See Clark in re, ex parte 
 
 Pope & Owles. 
 Pope, Stein v. See Stein v. Pope. 
 Poppleton ex parte, in re Lock. See Lock in re, ex parte Pop- 
 
 pleton. 
 
 Poppleton & Jones Contract in re (1896), 74 L. T. 582 95 
 
 Portal & Co. -ex parte, in re C'ooksey. See In re Cooksey, ex parte 
 
 Portal & Co. , 
 
 Porteous v. Reynar (1887) , 13 A. C. 120 45 
 
 Porterflelds v. Hodgins (1913), 29 O. L. R. 409; 14 D. L. R. 832; 
 
 affd. 30 O. L. R. 651; 17 D. L. R. 859 463 
 
 Postmaster-General ex parte, in re Bonham. See In re Bonham, 
 
 ex parte Postmaster-General. 
 
 Potter v. Brown (1804) , 5 East. 124 537 
 
 Potter & Co.. McEntire v. See McEntire v. Potter & Co. 
 
 Potter, R. v. See R. v. Potter. 
 
 Pottinger ex parte, in re Stewart. See Stewart in re, ex parte 
 
 Pottinger. 
 Potts, Hunter v. See Hunter v. Potts. 
 Potts in re, ex parte Taylor (1893), 1 Q. B. 648; 62 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 392; 69 L. T. 74; 41 W. R. 337; 10 Mor. 52 82 
 
 Poulson ex parte, in re Davis. See In re Davis, ex parte Poulson. 
 
 Powell v. Calder (1885) , 8 O. R. 505 353 
 
 Powell ex parte, in re a Debtor. See In re a Debtor, ex parte 
 
 Powell. 
 Powell v. Marshall, Parkes & Co. (1899), 1 Q. B. 710; 68 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 477; 47 W. R. 419; 80 L. T. 509; 45 T. L. R. 289; 
 
 6 Man. 157 303, 359 
 
 Powell, Northern Commercial Co. v. See Northern Commercial 
 
 Co. v. Powell. 
 Power. Boaler v. See Boaler v. Power. 
 
 Powis v. Quebec Bank (1893), 2 Q. R. (Q.B.) 566 74 
 
 Pownall re (1851), 1 Ponb. 221 529 
 
 Pownall, Merry v. See Merry v. Pownall. 
 
 Pbyser, Beyfus v., in re Perkins. See In re Perkins. 
 
 Prager in re, ex parte Societe Cockrill (1876), 3 Ch. D. 115; 
 
 45 L. J. Bank. 124; 34 L. T. 665 391, 392, 400 
 
 Pratt in re, ex parte (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 334; 53 L. J. Ch. 613; 
 
 1 Mor. 27 .• 167, 605, 632 
 
 Pratt ex parte, in re Hayman. See Hayman in re, ex parte Pratt. 
 
 Pratt v. Bunnell (1891) . 21 O. R. 1 293 
 
 Pratt, Richardson v. See Richardson v. Pratt. 
 
 Preston v. Hunton (1875), 37 U. C. Q. B. 177 215, 534 
 
 Preston, Hedges v. See Hedges v. Preston. 
 
 Preston's Trustee v. Cooke. See Official Receiver v. Cooke. 
 
 Price in re, ex parte Foreman (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 466; 33 W R. 
 
 139 ; 1 Mor. 153 579 
 
 Price in re. ex parte Sear (1881), 17 Ch. D. 74 81 
 
 Priestly ex parte, in re Stanlake & Son. See Stanlake & Son in 
 
 re. ex Darte Priestly. 
 Prigoshen in re ex parte Official Receiver (1912). 2 K. B. 494; 
 
 81 L. J. K. B. 1199; 106 L. T. 814; 56 Sol. J. 554;; 19 Man 
 
 323 146, 247, 283 
 
 Prima Skirt Co. Ltd.. Thompson's Claim (1921), 1 C. B. R. 438 
 
 (Panneton, J.) 41 
 
 Prima Skirt Co Ltd. (1921), 1 C. B. R. 394 (Panneton, J.) 228 
 
 Primrose v. Browley (1739 ) . 1 Atk. 89 241 
 
,. vi TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Prince in re, ex parte Graves (1868), L. R. 3 Ch. 642; 19 L. T. 
 
 241 536, 627 
 
 Pringle, Fleury v. See Fleury v. Pringle. 
 
 Pritchard, Baxter v. See Baxter v. Pritchard. 
 
 Pritchard, Cooper v. See Cooper v. Pritchard. 
 
 Proctor in re (1891), 2 Q. B. 433; 39 W. R. 655; 65 L. T. 348; 
 
 8 Mor. 251 574, 636, 648 
 
 Producers' Rock & Gravel Co. Ltd. in re (1914-), 14 D. L..R. 289. 557 
 Property Ins. Co. (1914), 1 Ch. 775; 83 L. J. Ch. 525; 110 L. T. 
 
 973 506 
 
 Proud, Hornblower v. See Hornblower v. Proud. 
 
 Prout v. Gregory (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 281; 38 W. R. 204; 59 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 118; 61 L. T. 696; 7 Mor. 1 389 
 
 Province of Brescia Steam Tramways, Fraser v. See Fraser v. 
 
 Prov. of Brescia Steam Tramways. 
 Provincial Assets Co., England v., in re Croom. See In re Croom. 
 Pryce in re, ex parte Rensberg (1877), L. R. 4 Ch. D/685; 36 
 
 L. T. 117; 25 W. R. 432 . . .» 70 
 
 Pryor in re, ex parte Board of Trade (1888), 59 L. T. 256; 5 
 
 Mor. 232 268 
 
 Puget Sound, Michigan Trust Co. v. See Michigan Trust Co. v. 
 
 Puget Sound. 
 Pulborough School Board Election in re, Bourke v. Nutt in re 
 
 (1894), 1 Q. B. 725; 63 L. J. Q. B. 497; 70 L. T. 639; 42 W. R. 
 
 388 ; 1 Man. 172 632 
 
 Pulling v. Tucker (1821) , 4 B. & A. 382 175 
 
 Pulos, Soper v. See Soper v. Pulos. 
 
 Pulsford in re, ex parte Hayman (1878), 8 Ch. D. 11; 47 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 54; 38 L. T. 238 469 
 
 Purssell ex parte, New City Constitutional Club in re. See New 
 
 City Constitutional Club in re, ex parte Purssell. 
 Quartermaine's Case in re London, Windsor & Greenwich Hotels 
 
 Co. See London, Windsor & Greenwich Hotels Co. in re, 
 
 "Quartermaine's Case. 
 Quebec Bank, Powis v. See Powis v. Quebec Bank. 
 
 Quebec Bank v. Snure (1869), 16 Gr. 681 261 
 
 Queen, The, Exchange Bank of Canada v. See Exchange Bank 
 
 of Canada v. The Queen. 
 Queen, The, Quirt v. See Quirt v. The Queen. 
 
 Queensland Mercantile Agency (1888), 58 L. T. 878 560 
 
 Queensland Mercantile Agency (1891), 61 Lj J. Ch. 48 490 
 
 Quilter ex parte, in re Barnes. See In re Barnes, ex parte 
 
 Quilter. 
 Quilter, Pooley v. See Pooley v. Quilter. 
 
 Quirt v. The Queen (1891), 19 S. C. R. 510; 5 Cart. 456 25, 26 
 
 R. v. Ayoup (1910), 39 N. B. R. 598; 16 Can. Cr. C. 375 Ill 
 
 R. v. County of Wellington, 17 O. A. R. 615; 17 O. R. 421 25, 26 
 
 R. v. Van Meter (1906), 11 Can. Cr. C 207 Ill 
 
 R. v. Potter (1860) , 10 U. C. C. P. 39 Ill 
 
 R. v. Shaw (1899), 31 N. S. R. 534 Ill 
 
 Raatz in re, ex parte (1897), 2 Q. B. 80; 66 L. J Q. B. 501; 76 
 
 L. T. 503; 45 W. R. 666; 4 Man. 127 .. ... 130 
 
 Raatz in re, ex parte Carlhian (1897), 4 Mans. 50; 76 L. T. 330. 595 
 Rabbidge ex parte, in re Pooley. See Pooley in re, ex parte 
 
 Rabbidge. 
 
 Radford, Bright & Co. in re (1901), 1 Ch. 272, 735 406, 411 
 
 Rae v. McDonald (1887), 13 O. R. 352, 357 64 
 
 Railton v. Wood (1890), 15 A. C. 363; 59 L. J. C. P. 84; 63 L. T. 
 
 13 477, 479, 480 
 
 Railway Sleepers Supply Co. in re (1885), L. R. 29 Ch. D. 204.. 119 
 Rainbow v. Juggins (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 138, 422; 49 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 1 353, 718; 42 L. T. 88 442 
 
 Rainbow v. Kittoe (1916), 1 Ch. 313 264 
 
 Rainy Lake Lumber Co. in re, Stewart v. Union Bank of Lower 
 
 Canada (1888), 15 O. A. R. 749 46 
 
 Ramchund ex parte, in re Nepean. See Nepean in re, ex parte 
 
 Ramchund. 
 
TABLE OF C'.l.S'A'N. 
 
 CVI1 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Ramsay in re, ex parte Deacon (1913), 2 K. B. 80; 82 L. J. K. B. 
 
 526; 20 Mans. 15; 108 L. T. 495 302, 341, 346, 352, 355 
 
 Ramsbottom v. Lewis (1808), 1 Camp. 279 113, 115 
 
 Ramsbottom, Timson v. See Timson v. Ramsbottom. 
 Ramsden v. Brearley (1874-5), L. R. 10 Q. B. 147; 44 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 46; 32 L. T. 24; 23 W. R. 294 57 
 
 Randall, Giles v. See Giles v. Randall. 
 
 Rankin in re, ex parte (1887), 5 Mor. 23 519, 528 
 
 Rankin, Magee v. See Magee v. Rankin. 
 
 Rapid Road Transit Co. in re (1909), 1 Ch. 96 669 
 
 Rathbone in re, ex parte Paterson (1887), 56 L. J. Q. B. 504; 
 
 4 Mor. 270; 57 L. T. 420; 35 W. R. 735 638 
 
 Rat Portage Lumber Co. v. Harty (1917), 40 O. L. R. 322 69 
 
 Raven Lake Portland Cement Co. in re, National Trusts v. 
 
 Trusts & Guarantee Co. (1911), 24 O. L. R. 286 557 
 
 Rawlings ex parte, in re Davis. See In re Davis, ex parte 
 
 Rawlings. 
 Rawlings ex parte, in re Foster. See In re Poster, ex parte 
 
 Rawlings. 
 Rawson, British Union v. See British Union v. Rawson. 
 Rayment in re, ex parte Parkes (1899), 80 L. T. 807; 6 Man. 288. 102 
 Rea, Logan v. See Logan v. Rea. 
 
 Read ex parte, in re Paine. See Paine in re, ex parte Read. 
 Read v. Bailey (1877), 3 App. Cas. 94; 47 L. J. Ch. 161; 37 L. T. 
 
 17 471 
 
 Read, Can v. See Can v. Read. 
 
 Receiver-General of New Brunswick, Liquidators of Maritime 
 Bank of Canada v. See Liquidators, etc. v. Receiver-Gen. 
 of N. B. 
 
 Redpath Motor Vehicle Co., Re (1904), 4 O. W. R. 51b 605 
 
 Reed ex parte, in re Tweddell. See Tweddell in re, ex parte 
 
 Reed. 
 Reed v. Wiggins (1862), 32 L. J. C. P. 131; 13 C. B. N. S. 220. . 632 
 Reed & Bowen ex parte, in re (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 244; 53 L. J 
 
 Q. B. 244 ; 34 W. R. 493 ; 3 Mor. 90 218, 219, 220, 221, 527 
 
 Rees in re, ex parte National Prov. Bank (1881), 17 Ch. D. 98; 
 
 44 L. T. 325 ; 29 W. R. 796 424, 425 
 
 Reeve v. Whitmore (1863), 33 L. J. Ch. 63; 11 W R. 334 83 
 
 Regent United Service Stores (1878), 8 Ch. D. 616 479, 563 
 
 Regent's Canal Iron Works Co. in re, ex parte Grissel (1878), 
 
 3 Ch. D. 411 262 
 
 Reg. v. Bank of Nova Scotia (1885), 11 S. C. R. 1; 4 Cart. 391. 
 
 609, 610 
 
 Reg. v. Bolus (1870) , 23 L. T. 339 618 
 
 Reg. v. Bowes (1861), 1 B. & S. 311 509 
 
 Reg. v. Cherry (1871, 12 Cox C. C. 32 617, 618 
 
 Reg. v. Creese (1874), L. R. 2 C. C. R. 105; 43 L. J. M. C. 51; 
 
 29 L. T. 897; 22 W R. 375 617 
 
 Reg. v. Dawson (1888), 59 L. T. 932 620 
 
 ,Reg. v. Dyson, 10 R. 230; (1894), 2 Q. B'. 176; 63 L. J. M C. 124; 
 
 70 L. T. 877; 42 W. R. 526; 58 J. P. 528; 1 Man. 283 620 
 
 Reg. v. Edwards (1854) , 9 Ex. R. 628 187 
 
 Reg. v. Erdheim (1896), 2 Q. B. 260; 65 L. J. M. C. 176; 3 Mans. 
 
 142 507 
 
 Reg. v. Juby (1886), 55 L. T. 788; 35 W. R. 168 619, 620 
 
 Reg. v. Judge of Surrey Co. Court (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 963; 53 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 545 5 i2 
 
 Reg. v. Knight (1878), 14 Cox C. C. 31; 37 L. T. 801 , . . . . 629 
 
 Reg. v. Michell (1880), 50 L. J. M. C. 76; 43 L. T. 572; 14 Cox 490. 616 
 Reg. v. Nash (1864), 9 Cox C. C. 434; 4 B. & S. 935; 33 L. J. 
 
 M. C. 94 617, 629 
 
 Reg. v. Oliver (1877), 13 Cox C. C. 588; 36 L. T. 114 629 
 
 Reg. v. Peters. 16 Q. B. D. 636 (1886), 55 L. J M. C. 173; 54 L T. 
 
 545; 34 W. R. 399; 16 Cox C. C. 36 619 620 
 
 Reg. v. Pierce (1887), 16 Cox C. C. 213; 56 L. J. M. C. 85 .' 629 
 
 Reg. v. Rawson (1892), 22 O. R. 467 259 
 
 Reg. v. Robinson (1867). L R. 1 C. C. R. 80, 90; 36 L. J. M. C 78 507 
 
cuii TABLE Of CANES. 
 
 PAGK , 
 Reg. v Scot! (1856), 25 L. J. M. C. 128; 4 W. R. 777; 7 Cox 164. . 507 
 
 Reg. v. Thomas (1870), 22 L. T. 138 618 
 
 Reg. v. Watkinson (1872), 12 Cox C. C. 271 623 
 
 Reg. v. Widdop (1872), L. R. 2 C. C. R. 3, 8; 42 L. J. M. C. 9; 27 
 
 L. T. 693 507, 602 
 
 Regina v. Fox (1899), 18 P. R. 343, 357 507 
 
 Regina v. Henry (1891), 21 O. R. 113 Ill, 130 
 
 Registrar of Croydon Co. Court ex parte, in re Wise. See Wise 
 
 in re, ex parte Registrar Croydon Co. Court. 
 Reid, Miller v. See Miller v. Reid. 
 Reid, Rielle v. See Rielle v. Reid. 
 
 Reinhardt v. Hunter (1905), 6 O. W. R. 421 171, 285 
 
 Reis in re, ex parte Clough (1904), 2 K. B. 769; 73 L. J. K. B. 
 
 929 ; 91 L. T. 592 ; 53 W. R. 122 ; 11 Man. 229 82, 331, 420 
 
 Remsden v. Holmes (1822), 20 Johns N. Y. 229, at 267 73 
 
 Rensberg ex parte, in re Pryce. See Pryce in re, ex parte 
 
 Revell v. Blake (1873), L. R. 8 C. P. 533; 42 L. J. C. P. 195; 
 
 29 L. T. 67 149, 160, 395 
 
 Rex v. Cosnett (1901), 20 Cox C. C. 6 620 
 
 Rex v. Coyne (1905), 69 J. P. 151 620 
 
 Rex v. Fryer (1912) , 7 Cr. A. C. 183 620 
 
 Rex v. Humphris (1904), 2 K. B. 89; 73 L. J. K. B. 464; 90 L. T. 
 
 555; 52 W. R. 591; 11 Man. 139; 20 Cox C. C. 620 175, 617 
 
 Rex v. Stone (1911), 17 Can. C. C. 249 627 
 
 Rex v. Wiseman (1902), 9 Mans. 12 617 
 
 Reynar, Porteous v. See Porteous v. Reynar. 
 
 Reynolds, in re and ex parte (1882), 21 Ch. D. 601 510 
 
 Reynolds ex parte and in re, 20 Ch: D. 294; 51 L. J. Ch. 756; 46 
 
 L. T. 143, 508; 31 W. R. 187 (1882) 507 
 
 Reynolds in re, ex parte White Bros. Ltd. (1915), 2 K. B. 186; 
 
 84 L. J. K. B. 1346; 2 H. B. R. 174 .58, 61, 598 
 
 Reynolds ex parte, in re Barnett. See In re Barnett, ex parte 
 
 Reynolds. 
 Reynolds ex parte, in re Norris See Norris in re, ex 'parte 
 
 Reynolds. 
 Reynolds v. Bowley (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 474; 36 L. J. Q. B. 247; 
 
 16 L. T. 522; 15 W. R. 124 469 
 
 Reynolds, Pennell v. See Pennell v. Reynolds. 
 
 Reynolds & Co. in re (1895), W. N. 31 406 
 
 Rhoades in re (1890), 44 Ch. D. 94; 59 L. J. Ch. 298; 38 W. R. 
 
 385 ; 62 L. T. 342 59 
 
 Rhoades in re, ex parte (1899), 2 Q. B. 347; (1899), 2 Q B. 347; 
 
 68 L. J. Q. B. 804; 80 L. T. 742; 47 W. R. 561; 15 T. L. R 
 
 407; 6 Man. 277 248, 291, 445 
 
 Rhodes ex parte in re Dean. See In re Dean, ex narte Rhodes. 
 Rhoades v. Dawson (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 548; 55 L. J. Q. B. 134; 
 
 34 W. R. 240 140 
 
 Rice v. Rice (1899), 31 O. R. 59; (1900), 27 A. R. 121 452 
 
 Richards in re (1890), 45 Ch-. D. 589; 59 L. J. Ch 728; 63 L. T. 
 
 451 309 ' 
 
 Richards in re, ex parte Deeping (1907), 2 K. B. :i:\; 76 L. J. 
 
 K. B. 643 ; 14 Mans. 88 251 
 
 Richards in re, ex parte Evans (1893), 10 Mor. 136 519, 52S 
 
 Richards in re, ex parte Official Receiver (1884), 32 W R. 1001; 
 
 1 Mor. 242 146, 173, 242, 247, 283 
 
 Richards, Harmon v. See Harmon v. Richards. 
 
 Richards & Brown Ltd. v. Leonoff (1915), 25 M. L. R. 548 64 
 
 Richardson, re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 417; 19 O. W. N. 494 (Holme- 
 
 sted, R.) 218. 219, 658 
 
 Richardson in re, ex parte (1820), 3 Deacon 496, 50G; Buck 480. 
 
 140, 187 
 Richardson in re, ex parte St. Thomas' Hospital (1911), 2 K. B. 
 
 705; 80 L. J. K. B. 1232; 105 L. T, 226; 18 Man. 227 283, 295 
 
 Richardson ex parte, in re Halstead. See Halstead in re, ex 
 
 parte Richardson. 
 Richardson v. Pratt (1885), 52 L. T. 614 114, 116 
 
TABLE UF VAHEH. ,.j x 
 
 PACK 
 
 Richardson, Robertson v. See Robertson v. Richardson. 
 Richardson, St. Thomas' Hospital v. See St. Thomas' Hospital 
 
 v. Richardson. 
 
 Richardson v. Webb (1884) , 1 Mor. 40 63 
 
 Richardson & Brummell, Martin v. See Martin v. Richardson 
 
 & Brumell. 
 Richdale ex parte, in re Palmer. See Palmer in re, ex parte 
 
 Richdale. 
 Richer, Oriental Bank v. See Richer v. Oriental Bank. 
 
 Rickaby v. Bell (1878), .2 S. C. R. 560 100, 343 
 
 Richens, Hire Purchase Co. Ltd. v. See Hire Purchase Co. Ltd. 
 
 v. Richens. 
 Richer. Oriental Bank v. See Oriental Bank v. Richer. 
 Rickett, Harris v. See Harris v. Rickett. 
 Riddeough in re, ex parte Vaughan (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 25; 33 
 
 W. R. 151; 1 Mor. 258 146, 247, 283 
 
 Riddell v. Goold, M. L. R. 51 S. C. 170 320 
 
 Ridge in re, ex parte Glyn (1840), 1 M. D. & D. 25; 6 Jur. 839 362 
 Ridge-way in re, ex parte Hurlbatt (1889), 61 L. T. 647; 38 W. R. 
 
 432; fi Mor. 277 255, 270 
 
 Ridgway ex parte, in re Hawley. See Hawley in re, ex parte 
 
 Ridgway. 
 
 Rielle v. Reid, 28 O. R. 497; (1899), 26 O. A. R. 54 103 
 
 Riley v. Curtis's & Harvey Ltd. (1920), 59 S. C. R. 206 596 
 
 Ring in re, ex parte Haynes (1821), 1 G. & J. 35 269 
 
 Risk v. Sleeman (1874), 21 Gr. 250 105 
 
 Risler v. Alberta Newspapers Ltd. (1919), 46 D. L. R. 536 155 
 
 Ritchie-Hearne Co. in re (1905), 6 O. W. R. 474 463 
 
 Ritso in re ex parte (1883), 22 Ch. D. 529; 52 L. J. Bank. 535; 
 
 31 W. R. 264; 48 L. T. 376 591, 606 
 
 Ritz, Schmidt v. See Schmidt v. Ritz. 
 
 Rivett-Carnac in re, ex parte Simmonds (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 308; 
 
 55 L. J. Q. B. 74 291 
 
 R. & O. Navigation Co. v. S. S. Imperial (1908), 12 Ex. 243 561 
 
 Robarts ex parte, in re -Gillespie. See Gillespie in re, ex parte 
 
 Robarts. 
 Robarts, Lubbock & Co., Cuthbert v. See Cuthbert v. Robarts. 
 
 Lubbock Co. 
 Roberts in re (1900). 1 Q. B. 122; 69 L. J. Q. B. 19; 48 W R 
 
 132; 81 L. T. 467; 16 T. L. R. 29; 7 Man. 5 296, 313 
 
 Roberts in re, ex parte Bonzoline & Co. (1904), 2 K. B 299; 73 
 
 L. J. K. B. 724; 11 Man. 134 524, 668 
 
 Roberts in re, ex parte Daniel (1888), 5 Mor. 213 353 
 
 Roberts ex parte, in re Holden. See Holden in re, ex parte 
 
 Roberts. 
 Roberts v. Bank of Toronto, 25 O. R. 194 (1894), 21 A. R. 629 84 
 
 Roberts v. Davey (1822), 4 B. & Aid. 667 483 
 
 Roberts v. Hartley (1902). 22 Occ. U. 185; 23 Occ. U. 53; 14 
 
 M. L. R. 284 286 
 
 Robertson in re (1885), 2 Mor. 117 651 
 
 Robertson ex parte, in re Magnus. See Magnus in re, ex parte 
 
 Robertson. 
 Robertson ex parte, in re Morton. See Morton in re, ex parte 
 
 Robertson. 
 
 Robertson v. Hale (1877) . 21 L. C. J. 38 229 
 
 Robertson v. Holland (1884-5). 10 O A. R. 616 370 
 
 Robertson v. Richardson (1885), 30 Ch. D. 623; 55 L. J. Ch 27."); 
 
 33 W. R. 877 289 
 
 Robertson Tarn v. See Tarn v. Robertson. 
 
 Robertson v. Thomas (1885), 8 O. R. 20 192 
 
 Robertson, Turnbull v. See Turnbull v. Robertson. 
 
 Robinhood v. Maple Leaf (1916), 26 M. L R. 238 78 
 
 Robins, Hosack v. See Hosack v. Robins. 
 
 Robillard v. Blanchet (1901), Q. R. 19 S. C. 383 556, 562 
 
 Robins v. Clark (1880), 45 U. C. Q. B. 362 349 
 
 Robins, Westmacott v. See Westmacott "v. Robins. 
 
CX TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PACK 
 
 Robinson In re (1879), 15 C. L. J. 287 171 
 
 Robinson in re'ex parte (1883), 22 Ch. D. 816; 31 W. R. 553; 
 
 48 L. T. 501 137, 586 
 
 Robinson in re, ex parte Burrell (1876), 1 Ch. D. 537; 45 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 68; 34 L. T. 191; 24 W. R. 353 214, 215 
 
 Robinson ex parte (1834), 4 D. & Ch. 499 471 
 
 Robinson v. Cook (1884), 6 0. R. 590 40, 81 
 
 Robinson v. C. P. R. Co. (1892), A. C. 481, 487 27 
 
 Robinson, Everett v. See Everett v. Robinson. 
 
 Robinson v. Mapleleaf (1917), 26 M. L. R. 238 366 
 
 Robinson, Maritime Bank v. See Maritime Bank v. Robinson. 
 Robinson v. McCauley (1913), 24 W. L. R. 617; 13 D. L. R. 437. 64 
 Robinson v. McGillivray (1906), 12 O. L. R. 91; 13 O. L. R. 232; 
 
 (1907), 39 S. C. R. 281 354, 366 
 
 Robinson, Reg. v. See Reg. v. Robinson. 
 
 Robinson v. Wilson (1908), 12 O. W. R. 198, 763 351, 369, 370 
 
 Robson ex parte, in re Amner. See In re Amner, ex parte Rob- 
 son. 
 Robson ex parte, in re Fitzgeorge. See In re Fitzgeorge, ex 
 parte Robson. 
 
 Robson v. Warren (1870) . 6 C. L. J. N. S. 14 534 
 
 Roche, Campbell v. See Campbell v. Roche. 
 Rochester German Fire Ins. Co., Wade v. See Wade v. Roches- 
 ter German Fire Ins. Co. 
 Rockland Chocolate and Cocoa Co. Ltd. in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 
 
 452 (Orde, J.) 84, 228, 441 
 
 Roe v. Mutual Loan (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 347; 56 L. J. Q. B. 541; 
 
 35 W. R. 723 495 
 
 Rodesia Gold Fields Co. Ltd., Partridge v. See Partridge v. 
 
 Rodesia Gold Fields Co. Ltd. 
 Roe, Smith v. See Smith v. Roe. 
 
 Roffey ex parte (1815), 2 Rose 245 429, 489 
 
 Rogers ex parte in re (1880), 15 Ch. D. 207; 43 L. T. 163; 29 
 
 W. R. 29 132 
 
 Rogers in re ex parte (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 428; 33 W. R. 354; 1 
 
 Mor. 159' 216, 219, 220, 526, 528, 632 
 
 Rogers in re, ex parte Collins (1894), 1 Q. B. 425; 63 L J. Q B 
 
 178; 70 L. T. 107; 1 Man. 387 282, 296, 313,' 375 
 
 Rogers in re, ex parte Holland (1891), 8 Mor. 243 147, 352 
 
 Rogers in re, ex parte Villars (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 432; 43 L J 
 
 Bank. 76; 30 L. T. 104; 22 W. R. 603 91, 118, 190 
 
 Rogers in re, ex parte Woodthorpe (1891), 8 Mor. 236 375 
 
 Rogers ex parte, in re Boustead. See In re Bbustead, ex parte 
 Rogers. 
 
 Rogers v. Carroll (1899), 30 O. R. 328 349 
 
 Rogers. Dunlop v. See Dunlop v. Rogers. 
 
 Rogers v. Spence (1846), 13 M. & W. 571; 12 CI. & F 700 .... 297 
 
 Rogers & Farewell in re (1890), 14 P. R. 38 322 
 
 Rolleston, Hague v. See Hague v. Rolleston. 
 
 Rolfe v. Flower, L. R. 7 P. C. 27 467 
 
 Rooney v. Lyon (1877), 40 U. C. Q. B. 366; 2 O. A. R 53 '.'.'.218, 224 
 
 Roscoe Ltd. v. Winder (1915). 1 Ch. 62 285 
 
 Rose in re (1904), 2 Ch. 348; 73 L. J. Ch. 726; 91 L T. 254; 11 
 
 Mans. 347 ' 315 
 
 Rose in re (1905), 1 Ch. 94; 74 L. J. Ch. 22; 'si'L.'T.'mi 11 
 
 Mans. 347 ; 315 
 
 Rose in re, ex parte Hasluck (1894), 1 Man. 218 ' " .... 87 
 
 Rose v. Brown (1866), 16 U. C. C. P'477 92 
 
 Rose v. Buckett (1901), 2 K. B. 449; 70 L. J. K. B 736; 50 W. 
 
 R. 8; 84 L. T. 670; 17 T. L. R. 544; 8 Mans. 259 ..297, 298, 299 
 Rose, Cbpeman v. See Copeman v. Rose 
 
 Rose v. Haycock (1834) , 1 A. & E. 460 103 
 
 Rose v. Hart II. S. L C . . 321 
 
 Rose, O'Reilly v. See O'Reilly v. Rose. 
 
 Rose v. Watson (1864) 10 H L. C. 672 86 
 
 Rosenstein in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 393 (Panneton J.j 151 
 
TABLE OF CASES. t:X [ 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Rosenthal ex parte, in re Dickenson. See Dickenson in re. 
 
 ex parte Rosenthal. 
 Rosenweig, Goldfine's Claim in re (1921), 1. C. B. R. 385 and 
 
 431; 56 D. L. R. 101 (Panneton J.) 41, 80 
 
 Ross in re, ex parte McDowall (1870), W. N. 176 501 
 
 Ross ex parte, in re Coles. See Coles in re, ex parte Ross. 
 
 Ross v. Army & Navy Hotel Co. (1886), 34 Ch. D. 43, 51 47 
 
 Ross, Bell v. See Bell v. Ross. 
 
 Ross, Davidson v. See Davidson v. Ross. 
 
 Ross v. Dunn (1889), 16 0. A. R. 552 105, 350 
 
 Ross, Gold v. See Gold v. Ross. 
 
 Ross v. Gutteridge (1883), 52 L. J. Ch. 280; 48 L. T. (N. S.) 
 
 117 164,535 
 
 Ross v. McRae in re Great Northern Construction. See Great 
 
 Northern Construction in re Ross v. McRae. 
 Ross, Perkins v. See Perkins v. Ross. 
 
 Ross Bros. v. Pearson (1905), 1 W. L. T. 338, 575 343, 346 
 
 Rouch v. G. W. Ry. (1841) 1 Q. B. 51; 4 Perry & Davidson 686; 
 
 10 L. J. Q. B. 89 113 
 
 Rousseau v. Heirs of A. J. Dubuc (1915), 47 Que. S. C. 127; 25 
 
 D. L. R. 854 122 
 
 Routhier, Ontario Bank v. See Ontario Bank v. Routhier. 
 Routledge, High River Meat Market v. See High River Meat 
 
 Market v. Routledge. 
 Rowe in re, ex parte West Coast Gold Fields Ltd. (1904). 2 K. 
 B 489; 73 L. J. K. B. 852; 9L L. T. 101; 52 W. R. 608; 11 
 
 Mans. 272 408 
 
 Rowland and Crankshaw in re (1866), L. R. 1 Ch. 421 469 
 
 Roy, Beaudin v. See Beaudin v. Roy. 
 
 Royal Canadian Bank v. Matheson, 6 U. C. L. J. N. S. 9 121 
 
 Royal Insurance Co., Isaacs v. See Isaacs v. Royal Insurance 
 Co. 
 
 Royds ex parte (1823), 3 D. & C. 294 550 
 
 Royle ex parte, in re Britnor. See In re Britnor, ex parte 
 
 Royle. 
 R. S. A. in re (No. 1) (1901), 2 K. B. 32; 70 L. J. K. B. 475; 84 
 
 L. .T. 477; 8 Man. 164 608 
 
 Rubin in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 384 (Cordeau R.) 219 
 
 Ruby in re, Trusts Corp. of Ont. v. Ruby (1897), 24 O. A. R. 
 
 509 472 
 
 Ruding v. Smith (1821), 2 Hagg (Consist) 371, 382 6 
 
 Ruffle in re Dummelow. See In re Dummelow, ex parte Ruffle. 
 Rumboll ex parte, in re Rumboll & Taylor. See Rumboll & Tay- 
 lor in re, ex parte Rumboll. 
 Rumooll & Taylor in re, ex parte Rumboll (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 
 
 842; 40 L. J. Bank. 82; 19 W. R. 601; 24 L. T. 400.. 511, 559, 565 
 Rushford in re, ex parte Holmes (1906), 95 L. T. 807; 14 Mans. 
 
 135 321 
 
 Rushford v. Hadfield (1806), 7 East 224 85 
 
 Rushforth ex parte (1805), 10 Ves. 409, 416 424, 425 
 
 Rushforth ex parte, in re Adie. See In re Adie. ex parte Rush- 
 forth. 
 
 Russell in re (1882), 7 O. A. R. 777 527, 529, 531, 617 
 
 Russell in re, ex parte Kemp (1873), 21 W. R. 450; 42 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 26 486, 508 
 
 Russell in re, ex parte Smith, 26 L. T. 226 510 
 
 Russell in re, ex parte Swift (1872), 26 L. T. 226 506 
 
 Russell ex parte in re Butterworth. See In re Butterworth, ex 
 
 parte Russell. 
 Russell ex parte, in re Winn. See Winn in re, ex parte Russell. 
 Russell, Foster v. See Foster v. Russell. 
 Russell, Oppenheim v. See Oppenheim v. Russell. 
 
 Russell v. Bell (1842), 10 M. & W. 340 116 
 
 Rust v. Cooper (1777), 2 Cowp. 629 350 
 
 Ruthen in re, ex parte Kidd (1898), 5 Mans. 227 79, 408, 432 
 
 Rutherford, Thompson v. See Thompson v. Rutherford. 
 
ex ii TABLE OF GASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Rutter v. Everett (1895). 2 Ch. 872; 64 L. J. Ch. 845; 73 L. T. " 
 
 82 ; 44 W. R. 104 ; 2 Man. 371 338 
 
 Ruttan, Strachan v. See Strachan v. Ruttan. 
 Ryan, Clarkson v. See Clarkson v. Ryan. 
 
 Ryan v. Malone (1908), 11 0. W. R. 575 178 
 
 Ryder v. Wombell (1868), L. R. 4 Ex. 32; 38 L. J. Ex. 8 56 
 
 Ryland ex parte, in re Elston. See In re Elston, ex parte 
 
 Ryland. 
 
 Ryland v. De Lisle, 6 Moore P. C. (N. S.) 325 320 
 
 Ryley in re ex parte (1866), 14 L. T. 707 529 
 
 Ryley in re, ex parte Official Receiver (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 329; 
 
 54 L. J. Q. B. 420; 2 Mor. 171 155 
 
 Sadler in re, ex parte Davis (1881), 19 Ch. D. 86; 30 W. R. 
 
 237; 45 L. T. 632 564 
 
 Sadler in re, ex parte Norris (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 728; 56 L. j; 
 
 Q. B. 93; 35 W. R. 19; 3 Mor. 260 443, 444 
 
 Sadler ex parte, 15 Ves. 52 ' 468 
 
 Sadler ex parte, in re Whelan. See Whelan in re, ex parte 
 
 Sadler 
 Safety Explosives, Ltd. in re (1904), 1 Ch. 226; 73 L. J. Ch. 
 
 184; 11 Mans. 76; 90 L. T. 331; 52 W. R. 470 408 
 
 Saffery ex parte, in re Vautin. See Vautin in re, ex parte 
 
 Saft'ery. 
 Saffery, Tomkins v. Tomxins v. Saffery. 
 Saffron Walden Building Soc. v. Rayner (1880), 14 Ch. D. 
 
 409 310 
 
 Sage, Church v. See Church v. Sage. 
 
 St. Barbe ex parte (1805), 11 Ves. 413 471 
 
 St. Denis Coal & Cartage Co. Ltd. in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 469 
 
 (Lamarre R.) ■ 261 
 
 St. George, Parkes v. See Parkes v. St. George. 
 
 St. Lawrence Lumber Co., Salter v. See Salter v. St. Lawrence 
 
 Lumber Co. 
 St. Thomas' Hospital v. Richardson (1910), 1 K. B. 271; 79 
 
 L. J. K. B. 488; 101 L. T. 771; 17 Mans. 129 283 
 
 St. Thomas' Hospital ex parte, in re Richardson. See Richard- 
 son in re, ex parte St. Thomas' Hospital. 
 Salaman in re and ex parte (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 936; 54 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 238; 52 L. T. 378; 2. Mor. 61 524, 526, 528 
 
 Salaman in re and ex parte (1912), 1 K. B. 309; 81 L. J. K. B. 
 
 360; 19 Man. 49 142 
 
 Salaman ex parte, in re Ashwell. See In re Ashwell, ex parte 
 
 Salaman. 
 Salaman ex parte, in re Evans. See Evans in re, ex parte 
 
 Salaman. 
 Salaman ex parte, in re Parry. See Parry in re, ex parte Sala- 
 man. 
 Salaman ex parte, in re Pilling. See Pilling in re, ex parte 
 
 Salaman. 
 Salaman ex parte, in re Saumarez. See Saumarez in re, ex 
 
 parte Salaman. 
 
 Salisbury in re, ex parte Brown (1824), 1 G. & J. 407 78 
 
 Salmon in re, ex parte O. R. (1916), 2 K. B. 510 255, 267 
 
 Salmond in re, in re Gordon. See Gordon in re, in re Salmond. 
 Salter v. St. Lawrence Lumber Co. (1896), 28 N. S. R. 335.. 556 
 
 557, 561, 600 
 Samuel, Beaty v. See Beaty v. Samuel. 
 
 Samuel v. Pairgrieve, 24 O. R. 486; (1894), 21 O. A. R. 418.... 539 
 Samuel v. Samuel (1879), 12 Ch. D. 152; 47 L. J. Ch. 716; 41 
 
 L. T. 463 ; 26 W. R. 750 289 
 
 Sanborn in re (1878), 14 C. L. J. 241 171 
 
 Sanders in re ex parte (1894), 63 L. J. Q. B. 734; 71 L. T. 236; 
 
 1 Mans. 382 132, 133, 655 
 
 Sanders Bloxam v. See Bloxam v. Sanders. 
 
 Sanderson v. Dixon (1878), 29 U. C. C. P. 377 ..215, 216, 217, 224 
 
 Sanderson v. McKewan. See McKewan v. Sanderson. 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 L'XIll 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Sanguinetti v. Stuckey's Bk. (1895), 1 Ch. 176; 1 Man. 477; 43 
 
 W. R. 154; 64 L. J. Ch. 181; 71 L. T. 872 333 
 
 Sarnia Oil Co. in re (1893), 15 P. R. 182, 347 594 
 
 Sartoris's Estate in re (1892), 1 Ch. 11; 61 L. J. Ch. 1; 65 L. T. 
 
 544; 40 W. R. 82 288 
 
 Sarvis & Canning ex parte, in re Morlock & Cline, Ltd. See 
 Morlock in re & Cline Ltd., ex parte Sarvis & Canning. 
 
 Sass in re, ex parte National Prov. Bank of Eng. Ltd. (1896), 
 
 2 Q. B. 12; 65 L. J. Q. B. 481; 44 W. R. 588; 74 L. T. 383; 
 
 3 Mans. 125 423, 424. 425 
 
 Saumarez in re, ex parte Salaman (1907), 2 K. B. 170; 76 L. J. 
 
 K. B. 828; 97 L. T. 121; 51 Sol. J. 447; 14 Man. 170 9-1 
 
 Saunders in re, ex parte Leigh (1896). 13 T. L. R. 108 514 
 
 Saunders, Ogden v. See Ogden v. Saunders. 
 
 Saunders, Warder v. See Warder v. Saunders. 
 
 Saunders & Co. in re (1908), 1 Ch. 415; 77 L. J. Ch. 289; 98 
 
 L. T. 535 ; 15 Mans. 142 306 
 
 Savage, Browne v. See Browne v. Savage. 
 
 Savage, Lockyer v. See Lockyer v. Savage. 
 
 Saville in re, ex parte Beyfus (1887), 35 W. R. 791; 4 Jlor. 
 
 277 133 
 
 Savin in re (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 760; 27 L. T. 466; 20 W. R. 
 
 1027 439, 454. 455 
 
 Savoie, Gastonguay v. See Gastonguay v. Savoie. 
 
 Sawers in re, ex parte Blain (1879), 12 Ch. D. 522; 28 W. R. 
 
 334; 41 L. T. 46 71, 75, 95 
 
 Sawyer, Tarrett v. See Tarrett v. Sawyer. 
 
 Say ex parte, in re Thornton. See Thornton In re, ex parte Say. 
 
 Sayer ex parte, in re Mansel. See Mansel in re, ex parte Sayer. 
 
 Sayers ex parte (1800), 5 Ves. 169 284 
 
 Scantletmry ex parte, in re Guy. See Guy in re, ex parte, 
 
 Scantlebury. 
 Sehack, Cox v. See Cox v. Schack. 
 Scharrer in re, ex parte Tilley (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 518; 5 Mor. 
 
 79 508, 509 
 
 Scheibler in re, ex parte Holthausen (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 722; 
 
 44 L. J. Bank. 26; 31 L. T. 13 40, 78, 304, 359 
 
 Schmaling ex parte, in re Adelbert. See In re Adelbert, ex 
 
 parte Schmaling. 
 Schofleld ex parte, in re Firth. See In re Firth, ex parte Scho- 
 
 field. 
 Schofield, Bayly v. See Bayly v. Schofield. 
 School Board for London v. Wall Bros. (1891), S. Mor. 202.. 263 
 
 Schmidt v. Ritz (1901), 31 S. C. R. 602 632 
 
 Schroeder v. Central Bank of London (1876), 34 L. T. 735; 24 
 
 W. R. 710 362 
 
 Schulte ex parte, in re Matanle. See Matanle in re, ex parte 
 
 Schulte. 
 Schulze ex parte, in re Clark. See In re Clark, ex parte Schulze. 
 Schwartz v. Winkler (1901), 13 M. L. R. 493; 21 Occ. N. 574.. 343 
 Scotch Whiskey Co. ex parte, in re Flatau. See In re Fiatau 
 
 ex parte Scotch Whiskey Co. 
 Scott in re, ex parte Paris-Orleans Ry. Co. (1913), 58 Sol. J. 
 
 11 136, 137, 139 
 
 Scott ex parte, in re Coates. See In re Coates, ex parte Scott. 
 Scott, Bank of Hamilton v. See Bank of Hamilton v. Scott. 
 
 Scott v. Hyde (1908), Q. R. 18 K. B. 138 . . . : Gl 
 
 Scott. Lumsden v. See Lumsden v. Scott. 
 
 Scott, Morley v. . See Morley v. Scott. 
 
 Scott, Newton v. See Newton v. Scott. 
 
 Scott, Reg. v. See Reg. v. Scott. 
 
 Scott v. Swanson (1907}, 39 S. C. R. 229; 27 C. L. T. 651. .78, 81, 189 
 
 Scottish Canadian Asbestos Co. in re, Allen v. Hanson (1890)! 
 
 18 S. C. R. 667 26 
 
 B.C. — TI 
 
exiv TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Seagram, Gates v. See Gates v. Seagram. 
 
 Seal ex parte, In re Campbell. See In re Campbell, ex parte 
 
 Seal. 
 Seaman in re, ex parte Furness Finance Co. (1896), 1 Q. B. 
 
 412; 65 L. J. Q. B. 348; 74 L. T. 151; 44 W. R. 496; 3 Man. 
 
 19 357 
 
 Sear ex parte, in re Price. See Price in re, ex parte Sear. 
 Seaton ex parte, in re Deerhurst. See In re Deerhurst, ex parte 
 
 Seaton. 
 
 Security Trust Co. v. Dodd, 173 U. S. 624 73 
 
 Sedgwick in re, ex parte Habbs (1892), 9 Mor. 217 361 
 
 Sedley in re, ex parte Cobb (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 727; 42 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 63; 21 W. R. 777 406 
 
 Seear v. Lawson (1880), L. R. 15 Ch. D. 426; 49 L. J. Bank. 
 
 69; 42 L. T. 893; 28 W. R. 929 260, 272, 295, 377 
 
 Segsworth/ v. Anderson, 23 0. R. 573; 21 A. R. 242; (1895), 24 
 
 S. C. R. 699 256,412 
 
 Seinbane et al v. Christopherson (1918), S. L. R. 385 190 
 
 Selig v. Lion (1891), 1 Q. B. 513; 60 L. J. Q. B. 403; 64 L. T. 
 
 796 260,265,300 
 
 Selkrig v. Davis, 2 Rose, 291; 2 Dow. 230 71, 196 
 
 Semenza in re, ex parte Paget (1894), 1 Q. B. 15; 63 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 278; 69 L. T. 703; 42 W. R. 24; 1 Mans. 18 490 
 
 Setb et al, Kin Tye Loong v. See Kin Tye Loong v. Seth et al. 
 
 Settle, Hill v. See Hill v. Settle. 
 
 Sew ell in re White v. Sewell (1909), 1 Ch. 806; 78 L. J. Ch. 
 
 432; 100 L. T. 883; 16 Mans. 113 .224, 226 
 
 Shackell v. Charlton (1895), 1 Ch. 378 482 
 
 Shackleton in re ex parte (1889), 61 L. T. 648; 38 W. R. 288; 
 
 6 Mor. 304 519,524 
 
 Schackleton in re, ex parte Whittaker (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 446; 
 
 44 L. J. Bank. 91; 32 L. T. 443; 23 W. R. 555 302 
 
 Shallow in re, ex parte De Boos (1879), 40 L. T. 659 573 
 
 Shanks in re, ex parte Swinbanks (1879), 11 Ch. D. 525; 48 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 120; 4~0 L. T. 825; 27 W. R. 898 565 
 
 Shantz v. Clarkson (1913), 24 O. W. R. 596; 4 O. W.N. 1303; 
 
 11 D. L. R. 107 412 
 
 Sharp in re, ex parte Gundry & Johnston (1900), 83 L. T. 416. . 92 
 
 94, 96, 97, 101, 102, 173, 359, 363 
 Sharp ex parte, in re Walker (1886). See Walker in re, ex 
 
 parte Sharp. 
 Sharp v. Jackson (1899), A. C. 419; 68 L. J. Q. B. 866; 80 L. T. 
 
 841; 15 T. L. R. 418; 6 Man. 264 345, 347, 352, 355 
 
 Sharp, Lindon v. See Lindon v. Sharp. 
 
 Sharp v. McHenry (1886), 55 L. T. 747 156, 161, 162, 165, 300 
 
 Sharp, Masonic & General Life Assce. Co. in re Sharpe. See 
 
 Sharpe in re Masonic & General Life Assce. Co. v. Sharp. 
 
 Sharp & Secord v. Matthews (1869) , 5 P. R. 10 121 
 
 Sharpe in re ex parte (1879), W. N. 14 66 
 
 Sharpe in re. Masonic & General Life Assee. Co. v. Sharp (1892), 
 
 1 Ch. 154 44 
 
 Shaw in re (1920), 1 C. B. R. 368; 19 O. W. N. 153. (Holmested, 
 
 R.) 126, 219, 671 
 
 Shaw in re, ex parte Gill (1901), L. T. 754; 49 W. R. 264.127,129, 138 
 Shaw ex parte, in re Allen. See In re Allen, ex parte Shaw. 
 
 Shaw v. Allen (1914) , T. L. R. 631 632 
 
 Shaw, Boustead v. See Boustead v. Shaw. 
 Shaw, Collver v. See C'ollver v. Shaw. 
 
 Shaw v. Massie (1871) , 21 U. C. C. P. 276, 266 218, 223 
 
 Shaw, Key v. See Key v. Shaw. 
 
 Shaw, R. v. See R. v. Shaw. 
 
 Shawcross, Kirkman v. See Kirkman v. Shawcross. 
 
 Sheard ex parte^ in re Pooley. See Pooley in re, ex parte Sheard. 
 
 Shears v. Goddard (1896). 1 Q. B. 406; 65 L. J. Q. B. 344; 74 
 
 L. T. 128; 44 VV. R 402; 3 Man 24 102, 359 
 
TABLE OF CASES. CXT 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Sheen ex parte, in re Winstanley. See Winstanley in re, ex 
 
 parte Sheen. 
 Sheen ex parte, in re Wright. See Wright in re, ex parte Sheen. 
 Sheffield ex parte, in re Austin. See in re Austin, ex parte 
 
 Sheffield. 
 Sheffield ex parte, in re Sims. See Sims in re, ex parte Sheffield 
 Shepherd in re, ex parte Ball (1879), 10-Ch. 667; 48 L. J. Bank. 
 
 57; 40 L. T. 141 48, 417 
 
 Shepherd ex parte (1841), 2 M. D. & D. 204 438 
 
 Shepherd ex parte, in re Parkers. See Parkers in re, ex parte 
 
 Shepherd. 
 Sheppard ex parte, in re Bulwer. See Bulwer in re, ex parte 
 
 Sheppard. 
 Sheriff of Essex ex parte, in re Pinch. See In re Finch, ex parte 
 
 Sheriff of Essex. 
 Sheriff of Essex ex parte, in re Harrison. See Harrison in re, 
 
 ex parte Sheriff of Essex. 
 Sheriff of Essex ex parte, in re Levy. See Levy in re, ex parte 
 
 Sheriff of Essex. 
 Sheriff of Kent ex parte, in re Wells. See Wells & Croft in re, 
 
 ex parte Sheriff of Kent. 
 Sheriff of Middlesex ex parte, in re England. See England in re, 
 
 ex parte Sheriff of Middlesex. 
 
 Sherman in re (1915), 1 H. B. R. 231 247, 286 
 
 Sherville, Phillips v. See Phillips v. Sherville. 
 
 Shields in re (1912) , 106 L. T. 345 519, 520, 521 
 
 Shields v. Peak (1882), 8 S. C. R. 579 25 
 
 Shiell, R. Leslie Ltd. v. See Leslie v. Shiell. 
 
 Shilson ex parte, in re Cock. See Cock in re, ex parte Shilson. 
 
 Shine in re (1892), 1 Q. B. 522; 61 L. J. Q. B. 253; 66 L. T. 146; 
 
 40 W. R. 386 ; 9 Mor. 40 313 
 
 Shipley v. Marshall (1863), 32 L. J. C. P. 258; 14 C. B. N. S. 566. 259 
 
 Shirley in re, ex parte Board of Trade (1892), 9 Mor. 147 397 
 
 Shirley's Ltd. in re (1916), 9 S. L. R. 258; 29 D. L. R. 273; 34 
 
 W. L. R. 805 ; 10 W. W. R. 919 463, 479 
 
 Shoolbred ex parte, in re Angell. See Angell in re, ex parte 
 
 Shoolbred. 
 Shoolbred v. Clarke, in re Union Fire Insurance Co. (1890). 17 
 
 S. C. R. 265; 16 O. A. R. 161; 14 O. R. 618 25, 26, 594 
 
 Short, Brewin v. See Brewin v. Short. 
 
 Shrager in re (1913) , 108 L. T. 346 332, 371 
 
 Shrager v. March (1908), A. C. 402; 77 L. J. P. C. 105; 99 L. T. 
 
 33; 15 Man. 310 3 
 
 Shuttleworth v. McGillivary (1903), 5 O. L. R. 536; 2 O. W. R. 
 
 250 308 
 
 Sidaway v. Hay (1824) , 3 B. & C. 12 537 
 
 Sidebotham in re, ex parte, 14 Ch. D. 458 (1879), 49 L. J. Bank. 
 
 41; 42 L. T. 783; 28 W. R. 715 395, 593 
 
 Sidney, Hodgson v. See Hodgson v. Sidney. 
 
 Siebert v. Spooner (1836) , 1 M. & W. 714 101 
 
 Siggers v. Evans (1855), 5 E. & B. 367; 24 L. J. Q. B. 305. .91, 95, 187 
 Silber, Ellis v. See Ellis v. Silber. 
 
 Silk v. Osborne (1794) , 1 Esp. 140 296, 313 
 
 Silkstone & Dodworth Iron Co. in re (1881), 17 Ch. D. 158 483 
 
 Sill v. Worswick, 1 H. Bl. 665 71, 72 
 
 Sillitoe ex parte (1824), 2 Gl. & J. 374 471 
 
 Sills in re, Shears v. Goddard (1896), 1 Q. B. 406; 65 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 344; 74 L. T. 128; 44 W. R. 402; 3 Man. 24 92, 97 
 
 Silver in re (1877), 2 O. A. R. 1 242 
 
 Silverston ex parte, in re Goldberg. See Goldberg in re, ex parte 
 
 Silverston. 
 Sim. Cycle Makers Co. v. See Cycle Makers Co. v. Sim. 
 Simmonds ex parte, in re Camas. See In re Carnas, ex parte 
 
 Simmonds. 
 Simmons in re, ex parte Allard (1881), 16 Ch. D. 505; 44 L. T. 
 
 35; 29 W. R. 406 215 
 
cxv i TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PACK 
 
 Simmons ex parte, in re Lister. See Lister in re, ex parte Sim- 
 mons. 
 Simmons, White v. See White v. Simmons. 
 Simon in re (1909), 1 K. B. 201; 78 L. J. K. B. 392; 100 L. T. 
 
 133; 53 Sol. J. 117; 16 Man. 96 58 
 
 Simonson in re, ex parte Ball (1894), 1 Q, B. 433; 63 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 242; 70 L. T. 32; 1 Man. 30 143, 145 
 
 Simpson in re, Simpson v. Simpson (189-5), 1 Ir. R. 530- 40 
 
 Simpson ex parte (1744) , 1 Atk. 70 407, 488 
 
 Simpson, Cowell v. See Cowell v. Simpson. 
 
 Simpson, Luckin v. See Luckln v. Simpson. 
 
 Simpson v. Miravita (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B'. 287; 38 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 76 537 
 
 Simpson v. Newton (1868), 4 U. C. L. J. N. S. 46 391 
 
 Sims in re, ex parte Sheffield (1896), 45 W. R. 189; 3 Man. 340. . 333 
 Sinclair in re, ex parte Chaplin (1884), 26 Ch. D. 319; 53 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 732; 51 L. T. 345 95, 97, 101, 104, 105 
 
 Sinclair in re, ex parte Payne (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 616; 53 L. T. 
 
 767; 2 Mor. 255 143, 145 
 
 Sinclair v. Henderson (1864), 9 L. C. J. 306 217 
 
 Sinclair v. Mulligan (1888), 5 M. L. R. 17 12, 57 
 
 Singer & Co. v. Fry (1915), 2 H. B. R. 115 585 
 
 Singleton ex parte, in re Tritton. See Tritton in re, ex parte 
 
 Singleton. 
 Sinnot, Monkman v. See Monkman v. Sinnot. 
 Skegg in re, 25 Q. B. D. 505 (1890), 39 W. R. 72; 59 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 546; 63 L. T. 90; 7 Mor. 240 529 
 
 Skelton in re, ex parte Coates (1877), 5 Ch. D. 979; 37 L. T. 
 
 46; 25 W: R. 800 113, 605 
 
 Skill v. Lougheed (1912), 21 O. W. R. 167; 3 O. W. N. 647 379 
 
 Skinner v. Judge ox Northallerton Co. Court (1899), A. C. 439; 
 
 68 L. J. Q. B. 896; 63 J. P. 756; 80 L. T. 814; 15 T. L. R. 
 
 433 ; 6 Man. 274 500, 568 
 
 Skyrme ex parte, in re Burge. See In re Burge, ex parte 
 
 Skyrme. 
 Slaney, Hands y. See Hands v. Slaney. 
 Slater ex parte, in re Spink. See Spink in re, ex parte Slater. 
 
 Slater v. Jones, L. R. 8 Ex. 193, 194 '. . . 429 
 
 Slattery, Tierney v. See Tierney v. Slattery. 
 
 Sleeman. Risk v. See Risk v. Sleeman. 
 
 Slobodinsky in re, ex parte Moore (1903), 2 K. B. 517; 72 L. J. 
 
 K. B. 883; 89 L. T. 190; 52 W. R. 156; 19 T. L. R. 616, 651; 
 
 10 Man. 341 101, 103, 201, 353, 361, 364 
 
 Small v. Henderson (1899), 27 O. A. R. 492 379 
 
 Smart in re (1849), 1 Fonb. 14 527 
 
 Smart, Tallman v. See Tallman v. Smart. 
 
 Smart, The C'odville Georgeson Co. v. See Codville Georgeson 
 
 Co. v. Smart. 
 Smiley, Johnson v. See Johnson v. Smiley. 
 
 Smith in re and ex parte (1919), 88 L. J. K. B. 113 520 
 
 Smith in re, ex parte Edwards (1886), 3 Mor. 179 428 
 
 Smith in re, ex parte Fox (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 4; 55 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 288; 54 L. T. 307; 34 W. R. 535; 3 Mor. 63 463 
 
 Smith in re, ex parte Trustee (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 4; 55 L. J. Q. 
 
 B. 288; 3 Mor. 63 150 
 
 Smith in re, ex parte Valentine (1910), 54 Sol. J. 215; W. N. 
 
 23 409 
 
 Smith in re, ex narte Wilson (1910), 2 K. B. 346; 80 L. J. K. B. 
 
 16; 102 L. T. 261; 17 Man. 290 648 
 
 Smith, in re Hands v. Andrews (1893), 2 Ch. 1; 62 L. J. Ch. 
 
 336; 68 L. T. 337; 41 W. R. 283 155 
 
 Smith ex parte (1884-5-), 14 Q. B. D. 394 471 
 
 Smith ex parte, 2 Rose 63 468 
 
 Smith ex parte, in re Bevan & Co. See Bevan & Co. in re, ex 
 
 parte Smith. 
 
TABLE Of CASES. cwii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Smith ex parte, in re Hepburn. See Hepburn in re, ex parte 
 
 Smith. 
 Smith ex parte, in re Knight. See Knight in re, ex parte 
 
 Smith. 
 Smith ex parte, in re March. See Marsh in re, ex parte Smith. 
 Smith ex parte, in re Russell. See Russell in re, ex parte 
 
 Smith. 
 Smith ex parte, in re Staniar. . See Staniar, Roberts & Co. in re, 
 
 ex parte Smith. 
 
 Smith v. Antipitzky (1890), 10 L. T. Occ. N. 368 190 
 
 Smith, Antoniadi v. See Antoniadi v. Smith. 
 
 Smith v. Baker (1873), L. R. 8 C. P. 350; 42 L. J. C. P. 155; 28 
 
 L. T. 637 308, 564 
 
 Smith v. Beal (1894), 25 O. R. 368 263, 397 
 
 Smith, Bills v. See Bills v. Smith. 
 Smith, Brigham v. See Brigham v. Smith. 
 Smith, Buchanan v. See Buchanan v. Smith. 
 
 Smith v. Buchanan (1800), 1 East 6 537 
 
 Smith v. Cannan (1853), 2 E. & B. 35; 22 L. J. Q. B. 290 103 
 
 348 359 
 
 Smith v. Coffin (1795), 2 H. Bl. 444 '....'. 293 
 
 Smith v. Commercial Union Insce. Co. (1873), 33 U. C. Q. B. 
 
 529 297 
 
 Smith, Conn v. See Conn v. Smith. 
 
 Smith v. Currie (1813), 1 Rose 364; 3 Camp. 349 117 
 
 Smith, Denison v. See Denison v. Smith. 
 
 Smith v. Doyle (1879). 4 O. A. R. 471 378 
 
 Smith v. Dresser (1866), L. R. 1 Eq. 651; 35 L. J. Ch. 385; 14 
 
 W. R. 469; 14 L. T. 120 332. 371 
 
 Smith v. Pair (1885), 11 O. A. R. 755 348 
 
 Smith v. Graham (1846), 2 U. C. Q. B. 268 413 
 
 Smith v. Gronow (1891), 2 Q. B. 394; 60 L. J. Q. B. 776; 65 L. T. 
 
 117 483 
 
 Smith v. Harrington (1881), 29 Gr. 502 350 
 
 Smith v. Hodson (1791), 2 Sur. L. C. 11th Ed. p. 146; 4 T. R. 
 
 211 • 308 
 
 Smith v. Hutchinson (1877), 2 O. A. R. 405 350 
 
 Smith v. Jamesons (1794), 1 Esp. 114 241 
 
 Smith, King v. See King v. Smith. 
 
 Smith v. Lawrence (1891), 27 C. L. J. 116 342 
 
 Smith v. McLean (1878), 25 Gr. 567 350 
 
 Smith v. McMillan (1879), 26 Gr. 300 150 
 
 Smith v. Moon (1829), Moo. & M. 458 117 
 
 Smith v. Osborn (1858), 1 F. & F. 267 361, 382 
 
 Smith v. Pearson, in re Pearson. See Pearson in re. Smith v. 
 
 Pearson. 
 Smith, Rae v. See Rae v. Smith. 
 
 Smith v. Roe (1868-9), 15 Gr. 344 74, 293 
 
 Smith, Ruding v. See Ruding v. Smith. 
 
 Smith, Snarr v. See Snarr v. Smith. 
 
 Smith v. Sugarman (1909), 12 W. L. R. 585, 586; revd. 13 W. L. 
 
 R. 671; Restored 47 S. C. R. 392 343 
 
 Smith v. Williamson (1889), 13 P. R. 126 263 
 
 Smith-Fleming & Co. in re, ex parte Kelly (1829), 11 Ch. D. 306; 
 
 48 L. J. Bank 65; 40 L. T. 404 352, 355 
 
 Smith & Logan ex parte Fletcher & Brandon (1895), 72 L. T. 
 
 362; 2 Mans. 70 433,441 
 
 Smith, Maskelyne & Cooke v. See Maskelyne & Cook v. Smith. 
 Smith & Sons ex parte, in re Stables. See Stables in re, ex 
 
 parte Smith & Sons. 
 Smith & Sons ex parte, in re Staples. See Staples in re, ex 
 
 parte Smith & Sons. 
 
 Snarr v. Smith (1880), 45 U. C. Q. B. 156 45 
 
 Sneezum in re, ex parte Davis (1876), 3 Ch. D. 463; 45 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 137; 35 L. T. 389; 25 W. R. 49 305, 429, 485 
 
cxviii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Snell, Dansk Rekylriffel Syndikat Aktieselskab v. See Dansk 
 
 Rekylriffel Syndikat Aktieselskab v. Snell. 
 Snook, Wills v. See Wills v. Snook. 
 Snowball ex parte, in re Douglas. See In re Douglas, ex parte 
 
 Snowball. 
 Snowden ex parte in re (1881), 17 Ch. D. 44; 50 L. J. Ch. 540; 
 
 44 L. T. 830 423 
 
 Snure. Quebec Bank v. See Quebec Bank v. Snure. 
 
 Snyder in re, ex parte Pixley (1891), 8 Mor. 127 -146 
 
 Soan & Morley ex parte, in re Dagnall. See Dagnall in re, ex 
 
 parte Soan & Morley. 
 Soanes ex parte, in re Walker. See Walker in re, ex parte 
 
 Soanes.. 
 Societe Cockrill ex parte, in re Prager. See Prager in re, ex 
 
 parte Societe Cockrill. 
 Societe Generale v. Green (1883), 8 A. C. 606; 53 L. J. Ch. 153; 
 
 49 L. T. 750; 32 W. R. 97 544 
 
 Societe Generale v. Walker (1886), 11 A. C. 20; 55 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 169; 34 W. R. 662; 54 L. T. 389 309 
 
 Societe Generale de Paris v. Tramways Union Co. Ltd. (1884), 
 
 14 Q. B. D. 424; 54 L. J. Q. B. 177; 52 L. T. 912 307 
 
 La Societe & C. des Metaux, Gibbs & Sons v. See Gibbs & Sons . . 
 
 v. La Societe &c. des Metaux. 
 
 Softly in re, ex parte Hodgin (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 746 350 
 
 Solomon (1821), 1 Gly. & J. 25 407 
 
 Solomon in re, ex parte Dressier (1878), 9' Ch. D. 252; 48 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 20; 39 L. T. 377 483 
 
 Solomon ex parte, in re Tilley. See Tilley in re, ex parte Solo- 
 mon. 
 Solomons in re (No. 1) (1904), 1 K. B. 106; 73 L. J. K. B. 55; 
 
 89 L. T. 637; 52 W. R. 473; 10 Man. 369 520 
 
 Solomons in re, ex parte S. (No. 2) (1904), 2 K. B. 917; 73 L. 
 
 J. K. B. 1029; 91 L. T. 512; 53 W. R. 49; 11 Mans. 345 .... 276 
 Soltykoff in re, ex parte Margrett (1891), 1 Q. B. 418; 60 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 339; 39 W. R. 337; 55 J. P. 100; 8 Mor. 27 57 
 
 Somers in re, ex parte Union Credit Bank (1897), 4 Mans. 227. . 137 
 
 Somers, George v. See George v. Somers. 
 
 Soper v. Polos (1913), 4 O. W. N. 1258; 24 O. W. R. 526; 10 D. 
 
 L. R. 848; (overruled in Sykes v. Soper, 14 D. L. R. 497)... 190 
 Soper, Sykes v. See Sykes v. Soper. 
 Soucy v. La Compagnie d'Imprimerie Electrique (1902), 5 Q. P. 
 
 R. 105 562 
 
 South American Co. ex parte, in re Murietta. See Murietta in 
 
 re, ex parte South American Co. 
 South Eastern Ry. Co. Le Tailleur v. See Le Tailleur v. South 
 
 Eastern Ry. Co. 
 South Essex Estuary & Reclamation Co. in re (1869), L. R. 4 
 
 Ch. 215, 217 46 
 
 South Staffordshire Ry. Co., The, v. Burnside (1879-80), 5 Ex. 
 
 129 505 
 
 Southwood. Wild v. See Wild v. Southwood. 
 
 Sovereign Bank in re (1915), 43 N. B. R. 519 586 
 
 Sovereign Bank of Canada in re (1915), 3 O. L. R. 577 506 
 
 Sovereign Life v. Dodd (1892), 2 Q. B. 573; 62 L. J. Q. B. 19; 
 
 41 W. R. 4; 67 L. T. 396 325 
 
 Sowerby v. Brooks, 4 B. & A. 523 41 
 
 Sowry, Briggs v. See Briggs v. Sowry. 
 
 Spackman in re, ex parte Foley (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 728; 59 L J. 
 
 Q. B. 106; 62 L. T. 849; 38 W. R. 497; 7 Mor. 100 . . .93, 95, 97 
 Spackman in re. ex parte. May (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 728; 59 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 306; 62 L. T. 849; 7 Mor. 100 93, 145 
 
 Spada, Baldocchi v. See Baldocchi v. Spada. 
 
 Spalding in re, ex parte Official Receiver {1889), 61 L. T. 83; 
 
 6 Mor. 163 164 
 
 Spanish Corporation ex parte, in re Victoria. See Victoria in 
 
 re, ex parte Spanish Corporation. 
 
TABLE OF CASES. C xix 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Sparke in re, ex parte Cohen (1871), L. R. 7 Ch. 20; 40 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 16; 25 L. T. 473; 20 W. R. 69 551 
 
 Sparham in re ex parte (1864), 9 L. T. 548 529 
 
 Sparrow in re (1850), 1 Fonb. 69 527 
 
 Sparrow v. Carruthers. 2 W. Bl. 1197 57 
 
 Spence v. Coleman (1901), 2 K. B. 199 389 
 
 Spence, Rogers v. See Rogers v. Spence. 
 
 Spencer, Ferguson v. See Ferguson v. Spencer. 
 
 Spiers, Young v. See Young v. Spiers. 
 
 Spink in re, ex carte Slater (1913), W. N. 106; 108 L. T. 572; 
 
 57 Sol. J. 445; 29 T. L. R. 420 257. 412 
 
 Spooner v. Jones (1871) , 3 Ch. D. 481 175 
 
 Spooner, Siebert v. See Siebert v. Spooner. 
 
 Spratley in re (1909), 1 K. B. 559; 78 L. J. K. B. 390; 16 Mans. 
 
 91 573 
 
 Springer, Tillie v. See Tillie v. Springer. 
 Sproat, Zimmerman v. See Zimmerman v. Sproat. 
 
 Springall in re, ex parte Page (1872), 25 L. T. 716 64 1 
 
 Squire ex parte, in re Gouldwell. See Gouldwell in re, ex parte 
 
 Squire. 
 Stair Bank of Montreal v. See Bank of Montreal v. Stair. 
 
 Standard v. Johnson (1877), 42 U. C. Q. B. 66 534 
 
 Standard Bank of Canada v. Johnson (1877), 42 U. C. Q. B. 16. 494 
 Standard Bank of Canada, Munro v. See Munro v. Standard 
 
 Bank of Canada. 
 Standard Gold Mining Co. (1893), 2 Ch. 545; 64 L. J. Ch. 790;- 
 
 2 Mans. 463 636 
 
 Standard Realty v. Nicholson (1911), 24 O. L. R. 46; 19 O. W. 
 
 R. 373 ; 2 O. W. N. 1189 293 
 
 Stables in re, ex parte Smith & Sons (1894), 42 W. R. 448; 1 
 
 Mans. 68 132, 655 
 
 Stainton in re. ex parte Board of Trade (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 182; 
 
 57 L. T. 202; 4 Mor. 242 528, 529, 573, 668 
 
 Stallard ex parte, in re Howard. See Howard in re, ex parte 
 
 Stallard. 
 Stammers v. Elliott (1868), L. R. 3 Ch. 195; 37 L. J. Ch. 353; 
 
 18 L. T. 1 445 
 
 Stamp & Jones ex parte, in re Spence. See Spence in re, ex parte 
 
 Stamp & Jones. 
 Standard ex parte, in re Mills Bawtree Co. See Mills Bawtree 
 
 Co. in re. ex parte Standard. 
 
 Staner ex parte (1852) . 2 D. M. & G. 263 527 
 
 Stanger in re, ex parte Geisel (1882), 22 Ch. D. 436, 439, 440; 53 
 
 L. J. Ch. 349; 31 W. R. 264; 48 L. T. 405 114, 599 
 
 Staniar in re, ex parte Smith (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 544; 58 L. T. 
 
 884 ; 36 W. R. 608 ; 5 Mor. 67 219, 220 
 
 Stanlake & Son in re, ex parte Priestly (1878). 10 Ch. D. 774; 
 
 L. J. Bank. 48; 39 L. T. 643; 27 W. R. 292 625, 626 
 
 Stansfleld v. Cubitt (1858), 2 De G. & J. 222; 27 L. J. Ch. 266. 367 
 
 Stanton v. Collier (1854), 23 L. J. Q. B. 116 294 
 
 Staples in re, ex parte Smith & Sons (1894), 42 W. R. 448 579 
 
 Stapleton ex parte, in re Nathan. See Nathan in re, ex parte 
 
 Stapleton. 
 Stead, Butcher v. See Butcher v. Stead. 
 Steaves, Edgett v. See Edgett v. Steaves. 
 
 S. S. Imperial, R. & O. Navigation Co. v. See R. & O. Naviga- 
 tion Co. v. S. S. Imperial. 
 Steble, Morgan v. See Morgan v. Steble. 
 Stecher Lithographic Co. v. Ontario Seed Co. (1912), 46 S. C. R. 
 
 541 ' 353,363 
 
 Steel Bros. Ltd., Borland's Trustee v. See Borland's Trustee v. 
 
 Steel Bros. 
 
 Steel Co. of Canada in re (1885) . W. N. 79 263 
 
 Steel Ring Co. in re (1920), B. & C. R. 160 127, 135 
 
Cix TABLE OF CAKES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 'Stein v. Pope (1902), 1 K. B. 595; 17 T. L. R. 337; 71 L. J. K. 
 
 B. 322; 86. L. T. 283; 9 Mans. 125 92, 485 
 
 Steinhoff, McRoberts v. See McRoberts v. Steinhoff. 
 Stenotyper Ltd. in re (1901), 1 Ch. 250; 70 L. J. Ch. 94; 84 
 
 L. T. 149 ; 8 Mans. 203 346 
 
 Stephany in re, ex parte Meyer (1871), L. R. 7 Ch. 188; 41 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 33; 25 L. T. 733; 20 W .R. 173 114, 116 
 
 Stephens in re, ex parte Trustee (1885), 2 Mor. 20 625 
 
 Stephens v. Boisseau, 23 A. R. 230; (189-6), 26 S. C. R. 437 .... 323 
 
 Stephens, Copeland v. See Copeland v. Stephens. 
 
 Stephens v. Gerth in re Ont. Express & Transportation. See 
 
 Ont. Express & Transportation in re, Stephens & Gerth. 
 
 Stephens v. McArthur (1891), 19 S. C. R. 446 20, 346, 347 
 
 Stephens, Pennell v. See Pennell v. Stephens. 
 
 Stephenson in re, ex parte Brown (1897), 1 Q. B. 638; 66 L. J. 
 
 • Q. B. 423; 76 L. T. 358; 45 W. R. 416; 4 Man. 13 329 
 
 Stephenson in re, ex parte Official Receiver (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 
 
 540; 57 L. J. Q. B. 451; 36 W. R. 624; 58 L. T: 589; 5 Mor. 
 
 44 99,173,489 
 
 Stephenson ex parte, in re TSTaylor. See Naylor in re, ex parte 
 
 Stephenson. 
 Sterling, Clarkson v. See Clarkson v. Sterling. 
 
 Stern in re (1875), 37 U. C. Q. B. 296 217. 226 
 
 Stevens ex oarte Board of Trade (1898), 2 Q. B. 495; 67 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 932; 79 L. T. 80; 47 W. R. 61; 5 Mans. 222 520 
 
 Stevens ex parte, in re Whicher. See Whicher in re, ex parte 
 
 Stevens. 
 
 Stevens v. Copp (1868), 4 Ex. 20, 24 482 
 
 Stevens v. McArthur (1891), 19 S. C. R. 446 100 
 
 Stevens, Pike v. See Pike v. Stevens. 
 
 Stevenson ex parte (1892), 1 Q. B. 394 594 
 
 Stevenson v. Brown (1863), 9 U. C. L. J. N. S. 110 ..171, 174, 608 
 Stevenson, Cameron v. See Cameron v. Stevenson. 
 
 Stevenson v. McOwan (1867) , 3 L. C. L. J. 38 229 
 
 Stevenson v. Wood (1805), 5 Esp. 200 351 
 
 Stevenson, Wilson v. See Wilson v. Stevenson. 
 
 Stewart in re, ex parte Pottinger (1878). 8 Ch. D. 621; 47 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 43 ; 38 L. T. 432 428 
 
 Stewart, Cooper v. See Cooper v. Stewart. 
 Stewart, Gravel v. See Gravel v. Stewart. 
 
 Stewart v. Ledoux (1875), 2 Rev. Crit. 482 39, 84 
 
 Stewart v. Lepage (1916), 53 S. C. R. 337 (reversing 24 D. L. R. 
 
 554) 29 D. L. R. 607 163, 554, 555, 556, 562, 564 
 
 Stewart Macdonald Export Co., Bourbean Co. v. See Bourbean 
 
 v. Stewart Macdonald Export Co. 
 Stewart, Masuret v. See Masuret v. Stewart. 
 Stewart v. Union Bank of Lower Canada, in re Rainy Lake 
 
 Lumber Co. See Rainy Lake Lumber Co. in re, Stewart v. 
 
 Union Bank of Lower Canada. 
 Stickney, Barker v. See Barker v. Stickney. 
 Still in re, ex parte Strickland (1862), 32 L. J. Bank. 12.. 625. 62(5 
 
 Stillwell in re, Broderick v. Stillwell (1916), 1 Ch. 365 163, 420 
 
 Stillwell, Broderick v. in re Stillwell. See In re Stillwell. 
 Stinson, Dallas v. in re McCracken. See McCracken in re 
 
 Dallas v. Stinson. 
 Stock v. Holland (1874), L. R. 9 Ex. 147; 43 L. J. Ex. 113; 31 
 
 L. T. 121; 22 W. R. 661 120, 189 
 
 Stockley v. Parsons in re Parsons. See Parsons v. Stockley in 
 
 re Pearsons. 
 Stockton Iron Furnace Co. in re (1878), 10 Ch. D. 335; 48 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 417; 40 L. T. 19; 27 W. R. 433 101 
 
 Stoddart, Frost & Wood Co. v. See Frost & Wood Co. v. Stwd- 
 
 dart. 
 Stogdon, Levy v. See Levy v. Stogdon. 
 
 Stokes in re, ex parte Mellish (1919), 2 K. B. 256 . .143, 291, 313 538 
 Stone ex parte, in re Giles. See Giles in re, ex parte Stone. 
 
TABLE OF CASKS. C xxi 
 
 PACK 
 
 Stone ex parte, in re Welch. See Welch in re ,ex parte Stone. 
 Stone, Carter v. See Carter v. Stone. 
 Stone, Imperial Loan v. See Imperial Loan v. Stone. 
 Stone, Rex. v. See Rex. v. Stone. 
 
 Stone's Will in re (1893), W. N. 50 41, 309 
 
 Stoneham, Chamberlain v. See Chamberlain v. Stoneham. 
 Stoneham v. Stoneham, Strickem in re. See Strickem, Stone- 
 ham v. Stoneham. 
 
 Stones v. Parker (1846), 9 Beav. 385, 388 413 
 
 Stoveld ex parte (1823) , 1 Gl. & J. 303 470 
 
 Strachan v. Ruttan (1892), 15 P. R. 109 398 413 
 
 Strand in re, ex parte Board of Trade (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 492; 
 
 53 L. J. Q. B. 563 ; 1 Mor. 196 577, 578 
 
 Strang ex parte (1870), L. R. 5 Ch. 492; 39 L. J. Ch. 644; 22 
 
 L. T. 85 323 
 
 Stratford Fuel-Ice and Const. Co., Ooughlin & Irwin's Claim 
 
 (1913), 28 O. L. R. 481; 4 O. W. N. 1051; 13 D. L. R. 64 
 
 affd, 50 S. C. R. 100; 28 D. L. R. 437 271, 420, 422, 423 
 
 Strathmore v. Vane in re Bowes. See In re Bowes. 
 
 Strathy Wire Fence Co. in re (1904) 8 O. L. R. 186; 2.O. W. R. 
 
 834 136 
 
 Strawbridge ex parte, in re Hickman. See Hickman in re, ex 
 
 parte Strawbridge. 
 Stray ex parte in re (1867). L. R. 2 Ch. 374; 36 L. J. Bank. 7; 
 
 16 L. T. 250; 15 W. R. 600 97, 98, 128, 12.9 
 
 Street in re (1879), 15 C. L. J. 86 443 
 
 Streeter ex parte, in re Morris. See Morris in re, ex parte 
 
 mrpptpr 
 
 Strick in re,' ex parte Martin (1886), 3 Mor. 78 149 
 
 Strickam, Stoneham v. Stoneham (1919), 1 Ch. 149 308 
 
 Strickland ex parte, in re Still. See Still in re, ex parte Strick- 
 land. 
 Strouts ex parte, in re Blackburne. See In re Blackburne, ex 
 
 parte Strouts. 
 
 Struthers v. Henry (1900), 32 O. R. 365 424 
 
 Stuart v. Bowman (1853) . 3 L. C. R. 309 6 
 
 Stuart v. Cockerell (1869), L. R. 8 Bq. 607; 39 L. J. Ch. 127.. 309 
 
 Stuart, Culhane v. See Culhane v. Stuart. 
 
 Stuart v. Grough, 14 O. R. 255; 15 O. R. 66; (1888), 15 O. A R 
 
 299 147,154 
 
 Stuart v. Thomson (1893), 23 O. R. 503 348 
 
 Stuart v. Tremain (1883), 3 O. R. 190 370 
 
 Stuart-King, Hymans v. See Hymans v. Stuart-King. 
 Stubbins ex parte, in re Wilkinson. See Wilkinson in re, ex 
 
 parte Stubbins. 
 Stuckey's Bank, Sanguinetti v. See Sanguinetti v. Stuckey's 
 
 Bank. 
 Stucley in re, Stucley v. Kekewich (1906), 1 Ch. 67; 75 L J 
 
 Ch. 58; 93 L. T. 318; 54 W. R. 256 86, 87 
 
 Studer in re, ex parte Charteris (1875), L. R. 10 Ch 227; 44 
 
 L. J. Bank, 90 653 
 
 Sturdee ex parte, in re Kelly. See Kelly in re, ex parte 
 
 Sturdee. 
 
 Sturges v. Crowinshield (1819), 4 Wheat 122 3 
 
 Sturmey's Trustee v. Sturmey (1913), 107 L. T. 718. .359, 364. 365, 366 
 Sturt ex parte, in re Pearcy. See Pearcy in re. ex parte Sturt. 
 SufBeld & Watts in re, ex parte Brawn (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 693; 
 
 36 W. R. 584; 58 L. T. 911; 5 Mor. 83 590 
 
 Suffolk ex parte, in re Fletcher. See In re Fletcher, ex parte 
 
 Suffolk. 
 Sugarman, Smith v. See Smith v. Sugarman. 
 Sugden & Son Ltd. ex parte, in re Kitson. See Kitson in re, ex 
 parte Sugden & Son Ltd. 
 
 Sullivan in re (1869), 5 C. L. J. 71 171 527 
 
 Sullivan and Hughes in re (1904). 20 T. L. R. 393 ' 542 
 
cxxii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Sullivan Machinery Co., Plummer v. See Plummer v. Sullivan 
 
 Machinery Co. 
 
 Sultzberger in re, ex parte (1887), 4 Mor. 82 519, 522 
 
 Summers in re, ex parte Official Receiver (1907). 2 K. B. 166; 
 
 96 L. T. 791; 14 Man. 11; 76 L. J. K. B. 707 523 
 
 Sun Life Assurance Co. v. Elliott (1901), 31 S. C. R. 91; 21 
 
 C. L. T. 154 : 108 
 
 Sun Lithographing Co., in re Farquhar's Claim (1892), 22 0. R. 
 
 57 554 
 
 Sun Lithographing Co. re (1893), 24 O. R. 200 409 
 
 Sunderland ex parte, Leech & Simpkinson (1911), 2 K. B. 658; 
 
 80 L. J. K. B. 825; 105 L. T. 233; 55 Sol. J. 568; 18 Man. 
 
 123 98, 129, 138, 139 
 
 Suse & Sibeth in re, ex parte Dever (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 660; 56 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 552 290 
 
 Sutherland v. Nixon (1862) . 21 U. C. Q. B. 629 64 
 
 Sutton in re, ex parte Hall (1838), Mont. & Ch. 365; 2 Dea. 263. 261 
 Sutton v. Eng. & Colonial Produce Co. (1902), 2 Ch. 502; 71 
 
 L. J. Ch. 685; 50 W. R. 571; 87 L. T. 438 ! 10 Mans. 101 307 
 
 Sutton Barclay v. See Barclay v. Sutton. 
 
 Swabey in re, ex parte (1897), 76 L. T. 534 519, 522 
 
 Swan, Green v. See Green v. Swan. 
 
 Swansea Bank v. Thomas (1879), 4 Ex. D. 94; 48 L. J. Ex. 344; 
 
 40 L. T. 558 484 
 
 Swansea Urban Sanitary Authority, Morgan v. See Morgan v. 
 
 Swansea Urban Sanitary Authority. 
 Swanson. Scott v. See Scott v. Swanson. 
 
 Sweetapple v. Horlock, 11 Ch. D. 745; 48 L. J. Ch. 660 334 
 
 Swift ex parte, in re Russell. See Russell in re, ex parte Swift. 
 Swinbanks ex parte, in re Shanks. See Shanks in re, ex parte 
 
 Swinbanks. 
 
 Swinfen v. Swinfen (1857), 26 L. J. C. P. 97 498 
 
 Sydney Barker & Co. in re (1914), 21 Mans. 238 472 
 
 Sykes in re>, ex parte Frere (1829), 1 Mor. & Mea. 263 69 
 
 Sykes v. Soper (1913), 29 O. L. R. 193; 14 D. L. R. 497 190 
 
 Symons ex parte, in re Jordan. See Jordan in re, ex parte 
 
 Symons. 
 Syndicat Lyonnais du Klondyke, Le v. McGrade (1906), 36 
 
 S. C. R. 25 13 
 
 Taffenden v. Burgess (1803). 4 East 230 94 
 
 Tailby v. Official Receiver (1888). 13 App. Cas. 523: 37 W. R. 
 
 513; 58 L. J. Q. B'. 75; 60 L. T. 162 82, 83, 334, 337, 338 
 
 Tait re (1890), 9 M. L. R. 617 12 
 
 Tait in re, ex parte (1872), L. R. 13 Eq. 311; 41 L. J. Bank. 32; 
 
 20 W. R. 318 164, 560 
 
 Taitt ex parte (1809), 16 Ves. 193 468 
 
 Tallack, London & County Contracts Co. v. See London & County 
 
 Contracts Co. v. Tallack. 
 
 Tallman v. Smart (1894) , 25 O. R. .661 45 
 
 Tam, Emmerson v. in re Leng. See In re Leng v. Emmerson, 
 
 Tam. 
 
 Tam v. Robertson (1902), 9 B. C. R. 505 465 
 
 Tamblyn, Bank of Hamilton, v. See Bank of Hamilton v. 
 
 Tamblyn. 
 Tanenberg in re, ex parte Perrier (1889), 37 W. R. 480; 60 L. T. 
 
 270; 6 Mor. 49 98 
 
 Tankard in re, ex parte O. R. (1899), 2 Q. B. 57; 68 L. J Q B. 
 
 670; 80 L. T. 500; 47 W. R. 624; 15 T. L. R. 332; 6 Man. 
 
 188 201, 329, 371 
 
 Tanner ex parte, in re Auto Experts, Ltd. See Auto Experts 
 
 Ltd. in re, ex parte Tanner. 
 
 Tapster v. Ward (1909), 53 Sol. J. 503; 101 L. T. 25, 503 143. 
 
 291 313 538 
 Tarrett v. Sawyer (1835), 1 Thomp. N. S. R. 46 (2nd Ed.) .'....'. 5 
 Tate v. Charlebois (1870) , 14 L. C. J. 215 223 
 
TABLE OF CASES. cxxiii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Tatton ex parte, in re Thorp. See Thorp in re, ex parte Tatton. 
 Taylor in re, ex parte (1901), 1 Q. B. 744; 70 L. J. K. B. 531; 49 
 
 W. R. 510; 84 L. T. 426; 8 Man. 230 542 
 
 Taylor in re, ex parte Bolton (1909), 1 K. B. 103; 78 L. J. K. B. 
 
 102; 99 L. T. 939; 16 Man. 19 650 
 
 Taylor in re, ex parte Crossley (1872), L. R. 13 Eq. 409; 41 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 25 ; 2 O. W. R. 400 510 
 
 Taylor in re, ex parte Norvell (1910), 1 K. B. 562; 79 L. J. K. B. 
 
 610; 102 L. T. 84; 17 Mans. 145; 54 S. J. 271 304, 322 
 
 Taylor ex parte, in re Goldsmid. See Goldsmid in re, ex parte 
 
 Taylor. 
 Taylor ex parte, in re Grason. See Grason in re, ex parte Taylor. 
 Taylor ex parte, in re Houghton. See Houghton in re, ex^parte 
 
 Taylor. 
 Taylor ex parte, in re Lacey. See Lacey in re, ex parte Taylor. 
 Taylor, Brooks v. See Brooks v. Taylor. 
 Taylor, Cowell v. See Cowell v. Taylor. 
 
 Taylor v. Bavies (1917), 41 O. L. R. 403, 434 et seq 443 
 
 Taylor v. Davies (1920). A. C. 636, 647 256, 412 
 
 Taylor v. Plumer (1815), 3 M. & S. 562; 2 Rose 457 284 
 
 Taylor & Sons ex parte (1893), 1 Q. B. 648; 62 L. J. Q. B. 392; 
 
 10- Mor. 52 18S 
 
 Taylor & Co. ex parte, in re Brindley. See In re Brindley ex 
 
 parte Taylor. 
 Taylor & Sons ex parte, in re Potts. See Potts in re, ex parte 
 
 Taylor & Sons. 
 Teale in re, ex parte Blackburn in re (1912), 2 K. B. 367; 81 
 
 L. J. K. B. 1243; 106 L. T. 893; 19 Man. 327 364, 595 
 
 Tees, Ouimet v. See Ouimet v. Tees. 
 Tennant, Ball v. See Ball v. Tennant. 
 
 Tennant Y. Gallow (1894), 25 O. R. 56 370 
 
 Tennant v. Trenchard (1869). L. R. 4 Ch. -537; 38 L. J. Ch. 661. . 258 
 Tennant v. Union Bank, 19 A. R. 1; 5 Cart. 244 (1894), A. C. 
 
 31 24, 25 
 
 Tennent. Dauglish v. See Dauglish v. Tennent. 
 
 Terrell in re (1876), 4 C. D. 293; 46 L. J. Bank. 47; 35 L. T. 
 
 646 406 
 
 Terrington v. Hargreaves (1829). 5 Bing. 489 632 
 
 Tetley in re, ex parte Jeffrey (1896), 66 L. J. Q. B. Ill; 75 L. T. 
 
 166; 3 Mans. 226, 321 330, 331, 332 
 
 Tew, MacDonald John & Co., Ltd. v. See MaeDonald, John & Co. 
 
 Ltd. v. Tew. 
 
 Tew v. Toronto Savings and Loan Co. (1898), 30 O. R. 76 479, 482 
 
 Thames, The (1890), 63 L. T. 353 104, 364 
 
 Thellusson in re, ex parte Abdy (1919) . 2 K. B. 735 143, 291 
 
 Thibaudeau v. Garland (1896). 27 O. R. 391 325 
 
 Thibaudeau v. Paul (1894), 26 O. R. 385, at 389; (1895), 26 
 
 O. R. 385 337 
 
 Thoday ex part;e. in re Ellis. See In re Ellis, ex parte Thoday. 
 
 Thomas in re (1868), 15 Gr. 196 521 
 
 Thomas in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 473; 20 O. W. N. 180 (Orde, J.). 
 
 130, 57S 
 Thomas in re, ex parte Warner (1911), 55 S. J. 482; W. N 
 
 123 661 
 
 Thomas in re, ex parte Com. of Woods and Forests (1888) 21 
 
 Q. B. D. 380; 36 W. R. 735; 57 L. J. Q. B. 574; 59 L. T. 447; 
 
 5 Mor. 209 S10 
 
 Thomas, Davies v. See Davies v. Thomas. 
 
 Thomas v. Desenges (1819), 2 B. & A. 586 61 
 
 Thomas v. Hall (1874), 6 U. C. P. R. 172 178, 521, 534 
 
 Thomas, Madell v. See Madell v. Thomas. 
 
 Thomas v. Patent Lionite Co. (1881). 17 Ch. D. 250, 257- 50 
 
 L. J. Ch. 544; 29 W. R. 596; 44 L. T. 392 78, 478 
 
 Thomas, Reg v. See Reg v. Thomas. 
 
 Thomas, Robertson v. See Robertson v. Thomas. 
 
cxx j v TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Thomas, Swansea Bank v. See Swansea Bank v. Thomas. 
 
 Thomas, Turner v. See Thomas v. Turner. 
 
 Thomas Waterhouse & Co., Ltd., re (1921), 20 O. W. N. 298 
 
 (Middleton, J.) 135 
 
 Thompson in re, ex parte Dobson (1834), 1 M. & A. 666 488 
 
 Thompson in re, ex parte Williams (1877), 7 Ch. D. 138; 47 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 26; 37 L. T. 764; 26 W. R. 274 43, 101, 287 
 
 Thompson ex parte (1834), 3 D. & C. 612 471 
 
 Thompson ex parte (1835), 1 Dea. 90 293 
 
 Thompson v. Big Cities (1910), 21 0. L. R. 394; 16 O. W. R. 435; 
 
 1 O. W. N. 933 321 
 
 Thompson v. Clarkson (1891), 21 O. R. 421 412 
 
 Thompson v. Cohen (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 527; 41 L. J. Q. B. 2*1 ; 
 
 26 L. T. 693 83, 536 
 
 Thompson, Fraser v. See Fraser v. Thompson. 
 
 Thompson v. Giles (1824), 2 B. & C. 422 285 
 
 Thompson v. Rutherford (1868), 27 U. C. Q. B. 205 218, 534 
 
 Thomson v. Clydesdale Bank (1893), A. C. 282; 62 L. J. P. C. 
 
 91; 69 L. T. 156 284 
 
 Thomson, Stuart v. See Stuart v. Thomson. 
 
 Thordarson v. Jones (1908), 18 M. L. R. 223; 9 W. L. R. 233. 
 
 187, 190, 191 
 Thornber ex parte, in re Barlow (1886), 56 L.T. 168; 3 Mor. 304. 
 
 221, 223, 528, 529 
 
 Thornein he (1914), 2 Ch. 438; W. N. 336; 58 S. J. 755 321, 324 
 
 Thorne, McWhirter v. See McWhirter v. Thome. 
 
 Thorne v. Torrance (1867), 16 U. C. C. P. 445; affd. 18 U. C. C. P. 
 
 29 92. 95, 96, 100, 142, 229, 353 
 
 Thornton in re, ex parte Say (1832), 1 D. & C. 32 258 
 
 Thornton ex parte (1859) , 3 DeG. & J. 454 447 
 
 Thornton Davidson & Co. in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 379 (Tellier, 
 
 J) 653 
 
 Thornton Davidson' & Co. in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 381 (Bruneau, 
 
 J.) 256,559 
 
 Thornton Davidson & Co. in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 383 (Bruneau, 
 
 J) 256, 558 
 
 Thornton Davidson & Co. in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 383 (Sur- 
 veyor, J.) 247, 256, 559 
 
 Thornton Davidson & Co. in re, Macdonald's Claim (1921), 1 C. 
 
 B. R. 380 (Coderre, J.) 256, 559 
 
 Thornton v. McKewan, 1 H. & M. 525 423 
 
 Thorp in re, ex parte Tatton (1881), 17 Ch. D. 512; 50 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 792; 45 L. T. 89 514 
 
 Thorpe! in re, ex parte Lovering (1873), 15 Eq. 291; 42 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 39 650 
 
 Thrasher, Forrester v. See Forrester v. Thrasher. 
 
 Threlfall ex parte, in re "Williamson. See Williamson in re, ex 
 
 parte Threlfall. 
 Thrift in re, ex parte Kimber (1879), 11 Ch. D. 869; 41 L. T. 
 
 248 407 
 
 Thunder Hill & Bowker in re (1896), 5 B. C. R. 21 441 
 
 Thurlow in re Lord, ex parte O. R. (1895), 1 Q. B. 724; 64 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 479; 72 L. T. 642; 43 W. R. 403; 2 Man. 158 577, 578 
 
 Thurso New Gas Co. in re (1889), 42 Ch. D. 486 560, 563 
 
 Thurston & Co., Bailey v. See Bailey v. Thurston & Co. 
 Thwaites ex parte, in re Knowles. See Knowles in re, ex parte 
 
 Thwaites. 
 
 Tickle in re, ex parte Leather Sellers Co. (1886), 3 Mor. 126 483 
 
 Tidey v. Craib (1884), 4 O. R. 696 452 
 
 Tidswell ex parte (1887), 56 L. J. Q. B. 548; 35 W. R. 669; 57 
 
 L. T. 416; 4 Mor. 219 451, 453 
 
 Tierney v. Slattery (1906), 7 O. W. R. 489 47, 109 
 
 Tillet in re, ex parte Harper (1890), 7 Mor. 286 508 
 
 Tillett in re, ex parte Kingscote (1889), 60 L. T. 575; 6 Mor. 70 82 
 Tilley v. Bowman, Ltd .(1910), 1 K. B. 745; 79' L. J. K. B'. 547; 
 
 102 L. T. 318; 54 Sol. J. 342; 17 Man. 97 41, 302, 358, 418 
 
TABLE OF CASES. CXXT 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Tilley in re, ex parte Solomon (1882), 20 Ch. D. 281; 51 L. J. Ch. 
 
 677; 30 W. R. 603; 47 L. T. 57 406. 494 
 
 Tilley ex parte, in re Scharrer. See Scharrer in re, ex parte 
 
 Tilley. 
 Tilsonburg & Late Erie & Pacific R. W. Co. in re, 28 0. R. 106; 
 
 (1897), 24 O. A. R. 378 242 
 
 Tillie v. Springer (1891), 21 O. R. 585 445 
 
 Timbrill ex parte (1819), Buck 305 550 
 
 Timson v. Ramsbottom (1837), 2 Keens 35 310, 311 
 
 Titterton v. Cooper (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 473; 51 L. J. Q. B. 472; 
 
 46 L. T. 870 483 
 
 Tobias in re, ex parte (1891), 1 Q. B. 463; 60 L. J. Q. B. 244; 8 
 
 Mor 30 591 592 
 
 Tobique Gypsum Co. in re '('1903)'. '23 C.' L. T.' 303 ; ' 6 0. L. R 515 ;' 
 
 2 O. W. R. 868 163, 554, 560, 562 
 
 Todd ex parte, De G. 87 471 
 
 Todd ex parte, in re Ashcroft. See Ashcroft in re, ex parte Todd. 
 Todd, McLarty v. See McLarty v. Todd. 
 
 Toleman in re, ex parte Bramble (1880), 13 Ch. D. 885 669 
 
 Toleman, Waddell v. See Waddell v. Toleman. 
 
 Toleman & England in re, ex parte Bramble (1880), 13 Ch. D. 
 
 885; 42 L. T. 413; 28 W. R. 76 . .. 268, 513 
 
 Tolhurst v. Associated Portland Cement Mfgs. (1902), 2 K. B. 
 
 660; 71 L. J. K. B. 949; 51 W. R. 81; 87 L. T. 465 301 
 
 Tollemache in re, ex parte Bonham (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 604; 54 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 388; 33 W. R. 628; 52 L. T. 17 488 
 
 Tollemache in re. ex parte Ed-wards (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 415 495 
 
 Tollerton, Yale v. See Yale v. Tollerton. 
 
 Tomkins & Co. in re J. G. (1901), 1 K. B. 476; 70 L. J. K. B. 223; 
 
 49 W. R. 294; 84 L. T. 341; 17 T. L. R. 198; 8 Man. 132 607 
 
 Tomkins v. Saffery, 3 App. Cas. 213 (1877), 47 L. J. Bank. 11; 
 
 37 L. T. 758; 26 W. R. 62 350 
 
 Tomlinson v. Hampson, 38 Sol. J. 401 82 
 
 Tonnies in re, ex parte Bishop (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 718; 42 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 107 334 
 
 Took Bros. v. Broek (1907), 3 E. L. R. 270 349 
 
 Tooke Bros., Ltd. v. Brock & Patterson, Ltd. (1907), 3 E. L. R. 
 
 270, 272 21. 22, 2C5 
 
 Tooke v. Hollingworth (1793), 5 T. R. 215 284 
 
 Tooth v. Hallett (1869), L. R. 4 Ch. 242; 38 L. J. Ch. 396; 20 
 
 L. T. 155; 17 W. R. 423 70, 306 
 
 Toovey v. Milne (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 683 352 
 
 Topping ex parte (1865), 34 L. J. Bank. 13; 12 L. T. 3 472 
 
 Topping ex parte, in re Levey. See Levey in re, ex parte Top- 
 ping. 
 Torkington in re. ex parte (1874). L. R. 9 Ch. 298; 22 W. R 602 608 
 Torkington v. McGee (1902), 2 K. B. 427; 72 L. J. K. B 712; 87 
 
 L. T. 304 312 
 
 Toronto Cream and Butter Co., Ltd. in re (1909), 14 O. W. R. 81. 594 
 Toronto Savings and Loan Co., Tew v. See Tew v. Toronto 
 
 Savings and Loan. 
 Toronto Wood and Shingle Co. in re (1894). 20 C. L. T. 353. .. . 564 
 Torrance, Thorne v. See Thorne v. Torrance. 
 
 Totten v. Bowen (1882), 8 O, A. R. 602 451 
 
 Toursier ex parte, in re Pilet. See Pilet in re, ex parte Toursier. 
 
 Tovey in re ( 1910) , 26 T. L. R. 456 608 
 
 Toward in re, ex parte Moss (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 310; 54 L. J 
 
 Q. B. 126; 52 L. T. 188 83, 282 
 
 Towers, Melton Milk in re. See Melton Milk in re, Towers. 
 Towne ex parte, in re Brown. See In re Brown ex parte Towne. 
 Townsend in re. ex parte Hall (1880), 14 Ch. D. 132; 42 L T 
 
 162; 28 W. R. 556 . 119 
 
 Townsend ex parte (1809), 15 Ves. 470 , 240 
 
 Townsend, Bleasdell v. See Bleasdell v. Townsend. 
 
 Townsend v. Northern Crown Bank (1912), 4 O. W. N. 1245; 26 
 
 O. L. R. 291; affd. 27 O. L. R. 479 349. 594, 595 
 
cxxvi TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Townsend's Case; re Ontario Forge and Bolt Co. See Ontario 
 
 Forge and Bolt Co. re, Townsend's Case. 
 Township of Wilmot, Halwell v. See Halwell v: Township of 
 
 Wilmot. 
 
 Tracey in re (1849), 1 Fonb. 13 527 
 
 Tramways Union Co., Ltd., Societe General de Paris v. See 
 
 Tramways Union Co. v. Societe General de Paris. 
 Tranchemontague, Calvin v. See Calvin v. Tranchemontague. 
 Traver, Knox v. See Knox v. Traver. 
 Treadwell, Whyte v. See Whyte v. Treadwell. 
 Tregaskis in re, ex parte (1889), 62 "L. T. 605; 6 Mor. 309: 7 Mor. 
 
 jg.3 > t , 522 
 
 Trehearne in re, ex parte 6. R. (1890), 60 L. J. Q. B. 50; 39 W. 
 
 R. 116; 63 L. T. 322; 7 Mor. 261 82, 188 
 
 Tremain, Stuart v. See Stuart v. Tremain. 
 
 Tremblay v. Despatie (1921), 37 T. L. R. 395 6, 27 
 
 Trench in re, ex parte Brandon (1884), 25 Ch. D. 500; 53 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 576; 50 L. T. 41; 32 W. R. 601 115 
 
 Trenchard, Tennant v. See Tennant v. Trenchard. 
 ' Trevor ex parte, in re Burghardt. See In re Burghardt, ex parte 
 
 Trevor. 
 Trim in re, ex parte French (1882), 52 L. J. Ch. 48; 47 L. T. 339. 542 
 Trimsaram Coal, Iron and Steel Co. in re (1876), 24 "W. R. 900.. 563 
 Tritton in re, ex parte Singleton (1889), 61 L. T. 301; 6 Mor. 250. 70 
 Trotter, Oughton v. See Oughton v. Trotter. 
 
 Troughton v. Gitley (1766), Amb. 629 273 
 
 Troup ex parte, in re Hawkins. See Hawkins in re, ex parte 
 
 Troup. 
 Trudel, Parent v. See Parent v. Trudel. 
 Truman, Harris v. See Harris v. Truman. 
 Trustees of Bedford Charity, Bishop v. See Bishop v. Trustees of 
 
 Bedford Charity. 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Branson. See In re Branson, ex parte 
 ' Trustee. 
 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Clay. See Clay in re, ex parte Trustee. 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Fleming Fraser & Co. See In re Fleming 
 
 Fraser & Co. 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Follick. See Follick in re, ex parte 
 
 Trustee. 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Ford. See In re Ford, ex parte Trustee. 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Godding. See Godding in re, ex parte 
 
 Trustee. 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Goetz, Jonas & Co. See Goetz in re, ex 
 
 parte Trustee. 
 Trustee No. 2, ex parte, in re Gunsbourg. See Gunsbourg in re, 
 
 ex parte Trustee. 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Harris. See Harris in re, ex parte 
 
 Trustee. 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Hirth. See Hirth in re, ex parte Trustee. 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Jenkins. See Jenkins in re, ex parte 
 
 Trustee. 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Lawford & Lawrence. See Lawford & 
 
 Lawrence in re, ex parte Trustee. 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Lowndes. See "Lowndes in re, ex parte 
 
 Trustee. 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Neal. See Neal in re, ex parte Trustee. 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Powson. See Powson in re, ex parte 
 
 Trustee. 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Phillips. See Phillips in re, ex parte 
 
 Trustee. 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Sattherwaite. See Sattherwaite in re, ex 
 
 parte Trustee. 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Smith. See Smith in re, ex parte 
 
 Trustee. 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Stephens. See Stephens in re, ex parte 
 
 Trustee. 
 
TABLE OF CASES. cxxvii 
 
 PACK 
 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Warren. See Warren in re, ex parte 
 
 Trustee. 
 Trustee ex parte, in re Wells. See Wells in re, ex parte Trustee. 
 Trusts Corporation of Ontario v. Ruby in re Ruby. See Ruby in 
 
 re, Trusts Corporation of Ontario v. Ruby. 
 Trusts and Guarantee Co. v.iMunro (1909), 19 O. L. R. 480; 14 
 
 0. W. R. 699 ; 1 0. W. N. 52 284. 353 
 
 Trusts and Guarantee Co., Foster v. See Poster v. Trusts and 
 
 Guarantee Co. 
 Trusts and Guarantee Co., National Trust Co. v. See National 
 
 Trust Co. v. Trusts and Guarantee Co. 
 Trusts & Guarantee Co., National Trusts v. in re Raven Lake 
 
 Portland Cement Co. see Raven Lake Portland Cement 
 
 Co., in re National Trusts v. Trusts- and Guarantee Co. 
 
 Tucb v. Pyson (1829), 6 Bing. 321 484 
 
 Tucker in re, ex parte (1895), 73 L. T. 170; 2 Mans. 358 127 
 
 Tucker v. Hernaman (1853), 4 De G. M. & G. 395; 22 L. J. Ch. 
 
 791 263, 273 
 
 Tucker, Pulling v. See Pulling v. Tucker. 
 Tucker, Wild v. See Wild v. Tucker. 
 Tudhope, Lewis v. See Lewis v. Tudhope. 
 
 Tudhope v. Northern Bank (1909), 10 W. L. R. 122 343, 349 
 
 Tuff in re, ex parte Nottingham, 19 Q. B. D. 88; (1887), 35 W. 
 
 R. 567; 56 L. J. Q. B. 440; 56 L. T. 573; 4 Mor. 116 452 
 
 Tunstall in re, ex parte Burton (1879), 13 Ch. D. 102; 41 L. T. 
 
 571; 21 W. R. 268 102, 103 
 
 Turcott, Marcotts v. See Marcotts v. Turcott. 
 Turgeon. White Star Hotel v. See White Star Hotel v. Turgeon. 
 Tumbull v. Robertson (1878). 47 L. J. C. P. 294; 38 L. T. 389... 147 
 Turner in re, ex parte West Riding Bank (1881), 19 Ch. D. 105; 
 
 45 L. T. 546; 30 W. R. 239 79, 438 
 
 Turner ex parte. 2 D. P. & J. 354 389 
 
 Turner ex parte, in re Morgan. See Morgan in re, ex parte 
 
 Turner. 
 Turner, Parley v. See Parley v. Turner. 
 Turner v. Hardcastle (1862). 11 C. B. N. S. 683; 31 L. J. C. P. 
 
 193 94, 295, 362 
 
 Turner v. Thomas (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 610; 40 L. J. C. P. 271; 
 
 24 L. T. 879 322 
 
 Turner v. Watson in re Watson. See In re Watson, Watson v. 
 
 Turner. 
 Turnpenny ex parte, in re Davis. See Davis in re, ex parte 
 
 Turnpenny. 
 Turquand ex parte, in re Fothergill. See In re Fothergill ex 
 
 parte Turquand. 
 Turquand ex parte, in re Parker. See Parker in re, ex parte 
 
 Turquand. 
 Turvey in re, ex parte Lewis & Sons, Lim. (1918-19), B. & C. R. 
 
 128 134 
 
 Tweddell in re, ex parte Reed (1872), L. R. 14 Eq. 586; 26 L. T. 
 
 558; 20 W. R. 622 105 
 
 Tweedale in re (1892), 2 Q. B. 216; 61 L. J. Q. B. 505; 66 L. T. 233; 
 
 9 Mor. 110 345. 349 
 
 Tyler in re, ex parte Official Receiver (1907), 1 K. B. 865; 76 
 
 L. J. K. B. 541; 97 L. T. 30; 14 Man. 73... 143, 248, 291, 314, 538 
 Union Abitibi Mining Co., Belanger v. See Belanger v. Union 
 
 Abitibi Mining Co. 
 
 Udal v. Walton (1845), 14 M. & W. 254; 14 L. J. Ex. 262 362 
 
 Underhill in re (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 115; 35 W. R. 366; 3 Mor. 282. 579 
 Underwood ex parte, in re Hemsworth. See Hemsworth in re, 
 
 ex parte Underwood. 
 
 Uniacke v. Dickson (1848), James N. S. R. 287 4 
 
 Union Bank of Canada, Gordon v. See Gordon McKay v. Union' 
 
 Bank of Canada. 
 Union Bank of Canada v. Makepeace (1917), 40 O. L. R. 368, 372 
 
 373 439 
 
CXXviii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Union Bank of Lower Canada. Stewart v., in re Rainy Lake 
 
 Lumber Co. See Rainy Lake Lumber Co. in re Stewart v. 
 
 Union Bank of Lawer Canada. 
 Union Bank of Manchester ex parte, in re Jackson. See Jackson 
 
 ex parte, in. re Union Bank of Manchester. 
 Union Bank, Tennant v. See Tennamt v. Union Bank. 
 Union Cold Storage, Jowitt & Sons v. See Jowitt & Sons v. 
 
 Union Cold Storage Co. 
 Union Credit Bank ex parte, in re Somers. See Somers in re, 
 
 ex parte Union Credit Bank. 
 
 Union Fire Insurance Co. in re (1886), 14 S. C. R. 624 595 
 
 Union Fire Insurance Co., in re Schoolbred v. Clarke. See 
 
 Schoolbred v. Clarke, in re Union Fire Insurance Co. 
 Union, of London Bank, Ponsford v. See Ponsford Baker & Co. 
 
 v. Union of London Bank. 
 Union St. Jacques de Montreal L' v. Belisle (1874), L. R. 6 P. C. 
 
 31 2, 25, 26, 27 
 
 United Electric, National Provincial v. See National Provincial 
 
 v. United Electric. 
 United States Steel Products Co. v. Great Western Railway Co. 
 
 (1916), 1 A. C. 189 86 
 
 United States v. Webber (1912), 20 Can. C. C. 1 627 
 
 Unitt and Prott re (1893). 23 O. R. 78 171. 285 
 
 Urquhart in re (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 723; 59 L. J. Q. B. 364; 7 Mor. 
 
 &'4 653 
 
 Urquhart v. Aird (1905), 6 O. W. R. 155, 506; i 0. W. R. 501. 
 
 47, 109, 370, 377 
 
 Vacher v. Cocks (1830) , 1 B. & Ad. 145 350 
 
 Valentine ex parte, in re Smith. See Smith in re, ex parte 
 
 Valentine. 
 Valentine, Betton v. See Betton v. Valentine. 
 Valin v. Langlois (1879), 3 S. C. R. 1; 5 App. Cas. 115; 1 Cart. 
 
 158 197, 568 
 
 Van Allen, Langley v. See Langley v. Van Allen. 
 Van Boolen, Wolff v. See Wolff v. Van Boolen. 
 
 Vancini in re (1904) . 34 S. C. R. 621 568, 628 
 
 Van Wagner v. Findlay (1867)', 14 Gr. 53 39, 86 
 
 Vanderhage in re, ex parte Izard (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 147; 36 
 
 N. R. 525; 58 L. T. 236; 5 Mor. 27 490 
 
 Vanderlinden ex parte, in re Pogose. See Pogose in re, ex parte 
 
 Vanderlinden. 
 Vane, Strathmore v., in re Bowes. See In re Bowes. 
 
 Vanier v. Kent (1902), Q. R. 11 K. B. 373, 385 320, 325 
 
 Van Laun in re, ex parte Chatterton (1907), 2 K. B. 23, 30; 76 
 
 L. J. K. B. 644; 97 L. T. 69; 51 Sol. J. 344; 14 Man. 91 48? 
 
 Van Laun in re, ex parte The International Assets Co., Ltd. 
 
 (1908), 23 T. L. R. 371; 14 Mans. 281 523, 527 
 
 Van Meter, R., v. See R. v. Van Meter. 
 
 Vanloke in re, ex parte Dewhurst (1871), L. R. 7 Ch. 185; 41 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 18; 25 L. T. 751 373 
 
 Vans Colina, Mercer v. See Mercer v. Vans Colina. 
 
 Vansittart in re. ex parte Brown (1883), 1 Q. B. 181; 67 L. T. 
 
 592; 41 W. R. 32; 9 Mor. 280 201, 329, 370 
 
 Vansittart in re, ex parte Brown (2), 5 R. 280; (1893), 2 Q. B. 
 
 377; 62 L. J. Q. B. 279:; 68 L. T. 233; 41 W. R. 286; 10 Mor. 
 
 44 332, 371 
 
 Vars v. Gould (1879), 8 P. R. 31 264 
 
 Vaughan in re (1916) , 2 H. B. R. 55 498 
 
 Vaughan ex parte, in re Riddeough. See Riddeough in re, ex 
 
 parte Vaughan. 
 Vaughan, Dudley v. See Dudley v. Vaughan. 
 Vautin in re SaffeTy (1899). 2 Q, B. 549; 68 L. ,T. Q. B. 971; 6 
 
 Man. 391 445 
 
 Voutin in re, ex parte Saffery (1900), 2 Q. B. 325;. 69 L. J. Qt. B. 
 
 703; 48 W. R. 652; 82 L. T. 722; 7 Man. 291 348, 352 
 
TABLE OF CASES. cxxix- 
 
 I'AGE 
 
 Vavasour in re (1900), 2 Q. B. 309; 69 L. J. Q. B. 685; 82 L. T. 
 
 622; 48 W. R. 543; 7 Man. 262 267, 269. 271 
 
 Venn. General Furnishing and Upholstering Co. v. See General 
 Furnishing and Upholstering Co. v. Venn. 
 
 Vernon v. Hankey (1787) . 2 T. R. 113 360 
 
 Vernon v. Hanson (1788), 2 T. R. 287 308 
 
 Victoria in re. ex parte Spanish Corporation (1894), 1 Q. B. 259; 
 
 63 L. J. Q. B. 161 606 
 
 Victor v. Victor (1912), 1 K. B. 247; 81 L. J. K. B. 354; 105 L. T. 
 
 887; 56 Sol. J. 204; 19 Man. 53 163. 420 
 
 Vilandre, Mignelon v. See Mignelon v. Vilandre. 
 Villars ex parte, re Rogers. See Rogers in re, ex parte Villars. 
 Vine ex parte, in re Wilson. See Wilson in re, ex parte Vine. 
 Vinev ex parte, in re Adamson. See In re Adamson, ex parte 
 
 Viney. 
 Viney ex parte, in re Vingoe & Davies. See Vingoe & Davies in 
 re, ex parte Viney. 
 
 Vingoe Davis in re, ex parte Viney (1894), 1 Mans. 416 345, 348 
 
 Vint v. Hudspith (1885), 30 Ch. D. 24; 54 L. J. Ch. 844; 52 L. T. 
 
 774 428 
 
 Vipond, Hamilton v. See Hamilton v. Vipond. 
 
 Vitoria in re, 9 R. 536: (1894). 2 Q. B. 387; 63 L. J. Q. B. 795; 
 
 71 L T. 48; 42 W. R. 529; 1 Man. 236 133. 139 
 
 Vizard's Trusts in re (1866), L. R. 1 Ch. 588; 35 L. J. Ch. 804; 
 
 14 W. R. 1000 290 
 
 Vizianagaram Mining Co. ex parte, in re Macfadyen. See Mac- 
 fayden & Co. in re, ex parte Vizianagaram. 
 
 Vogel ex parte (1818), 2 B. & Aid. 219 509 
 
 Vogeler Co., Cooke v. See Cooke v. Vogeler Co. 
 Voisey ex parte, in re Knight. See Knight in re, ex parte Voisev. 
 Voluntary Assignments Case; Atty.-Gen. (Ont.) v. Atty.-Gen. 
 (Can.) See Atty.-Gen. (Ont.) v. Atty.-Gen. (Can.), Volun- 
 tary Assignments Case. 
 Von Weissenfeld in re, ex parte Hendry (1892), 9 Mor. 30. .501, 638 
 Voss ex parte, in re Button. See In re Button, ex parte Voss. 
 Wade, Barber v. See Barber v. Wade. 
 Wade, Crain v. See Crain v. Wade. 
 
 Wade v. Elliott (1907). 10 O. W. R. 206; 11 O. W. R. 38 64, 349 
 
 Wade, Johnston v. See Johnston v. Wade. 
 
 Wade v. Rochester German Fire Insurance Co. (1911), 23 O. L. 
 
 R. 635 ; 19 O. W. R. 99 ; 2 O. W. N. 1076 177, 248 
 
 Waddell ex parte, in re Lutscher. See Lutscher in re, ex parte 
 
 Waddell. 
 Waddell, Banco de Portugal v. See Banco de Portugal v. Waddell. 
 
 Waddell v. Toleman (1878), 9 Ch. D. 212 557 
 
 Wadling v. Oliphant, 1 Q. B. D. 145; (1875), 45 L. J. Q. B. 173; 
 
 33 L. T. 833 ; 24 W. R. 246 296, 313, 374 
 
 Wadsworth v. Picket (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 470; 49 L. J. Q. B. 454; 
 
 43 L. T. 410 535 
 
 Wainwright in re, ex parte (1881), 19 Ch. D. 140; 51 L. J. Ch. 
 
 67; 45 L. T. 562; 30 W. R. 125 257, 260, 559 
 
 Waite v. Bingley (1882), 21 Ch. D. 674; 51 L. J. Ch. 651 74 
 
 Wakefield Rattan Co. v. Hamilton Whip Co. (1893), 24 O. R. 107. 136 
 
 Wakefold Rolling Stock Co. (1892), 3 Ch. 165 394 
 
 Walker in re (1878), 2 O. A. R. 265 215 
 
 Walker in re (1881), 6 O. A. R. 169 466, 470 
 
 Walker in re (1905), 1 Ch. 160; 74 L. J. Ch. 86; 91 L. T. 713; 
 
 53 W. R. 177 59 
 
 Walker in re (1910), 26 T. L. R. 260 98 
 
 Walker in re, ex parte Barter (1884), 26 Ch. D. 510; 53 L. J. Ch. 
 
 802; 51 L. T. 811 358 
 
 Walker in re, ex parte Sharp (1886), 54 L. T. 682; 34 W. R. 550; 
 
 3 Mor. 69 580 
 
 Walker in re, ex parte Soanes (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 484; 1 Mor. 
 193 , 149, 160 
 
 B.C. — I. 
 
cxxx TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Walker in re, ex parte Watson (1880), 42 L. T. 516; 28 W. R. 
 
 . 632 438,448 
 
 Walker ex parte (1798), 4 Ves. 373 426 
 
 Walker v. Bradford Old Bank (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 511; 53 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 280; 32 W. R. 644 312 
 
 Walker v. Broadhurst (1853), 23 L. J. Ex. 71 131 
 
 Walker v Mottram (1881), 19 Ch. D. 355; 51 L. J. Ch. 108; 45 
 
 L. T. 659; 30 W. R. 165 259 
 
 Walker. Societe Generale v. See Societe Generale v. Walker. 
 Walker v. Walker (1919), A. C. 947, 953; 28 M. L. R. 495.. 4, 12, 13 
 Walker Co. Ltd. in re S. E. (1913), 25 W. L. R. 164; 6 A. L. R. 
 
 238; 12 D. L. R. 769; 4 W. W. R. 1288 463, 464 
 
 Wall Bros., School Board for London v. See School Board for 
 
 London v. Wall Bros. 
 Wallace in re, ex parte (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 22; 54 L. J. Q.'B. 293; 
 
 51 L. T. 551 ; 1 Mor. 246 127, 652 
 
 Wallace in re, ex parte Campbell C1885), 15 Q. B. D. 213; 54 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 382; 53 L. T. 208; 2 Mor. 167 218, 219 
 
 Wallace, Bank of London v. See Bank of London v. Wallace. 
 
 Wallace, Diehl v. See Diehl v. Wallace. 
 
 Wallace, Hall v. See Hall v. Wallace. 
 
 Wallani, Wilson v. See Wilson v. Wallani. 
 
 Waller ex parte, in re Dunkley & Son. See In re Dunkley & Son. 
 
 Wallis in re, ex parte Board of Trade (1891), 60 L. J. Q. B. 455; 
 
 39 W R. 453; 8 Mor. 110 519 
 
 Wallis in re, ex parte Jenks (1902), 1 K. B. 719; 71 L. J. K. B. 
 
 465; 86 L. T. 237; 50 W. R. 430; 9 Mans. 136 40, 310 
 
 Walmesley in re (1908), 98 L. T. 55; 15 Mans. 342 522 
 
 Walsby Williams v. See Williams v. Walsby. 
 
 Walsh in re (1859), 9 Tr. Ch. 16 261 
 
 Walsh, Court v. See Court v. Walsh. 
 
 Walter v. Leduc Lumber Co. (1915) , 8 W. W. R. 360 122 
 
 Walton v. Cook (1888), 40 Ch. D. 325; 58 L. J. Ch. 180; 60 L. T. 
 
 91; 37 W. R. 189 ' 225 
 
 Walton. Ponsford v. See Ponsford v. Walton. 
 Walton Udal v. See Udal v. Walton. 
 
 Wanzer Limited in re (1891) , 60 L. J. Ch. 492, 495 478 
 
 Warburg ex parte, in re Whalley. See Whalley in re, ex parte 
 
 Warburg. 
 
 Ward in re, ex parte Monkhouse (1879), 40 L. T. 296 625 
 
 Ward ex parte, in re Attree. See In re Attree, ex parte Ward. 
 Ward ex parte, in re Eastgate. See In re Eastgate, ex parte 
 
 Ward. 
 Ward ex parte, in re Gamgee. See Gamgee in re, ex parte Ward. 
 Ward ex parte, in re White. See White in re, ex parte Ward. 
 Ward v. Duncombe (1893), A. C. 369; 69 L. T. 121; 42 W. R. 59. 
 
 309 310 311 
 Ward v. Fry, 18 T. L. R. 2; 50 W. R. 72; (1901-2), 85 L. T.' 394; 
 
 50 W. R. 72 143, 363 
 
 Ward, Tapster v. See Tapster v. Ward. 
 
 Warder v. Saunders (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 114; 47 L. T. 475 266, 299 
 
 Ware in re, ex parte Carter (1878), 8 Ch. D. 731; 39 L. T. 185; 
 
 27 W. R. 106 392, 400, 483 
 
 Waring ex parte, in re Agra Bank. See In re Agra Bank, ex 
 
 parte Waring. 
 Waring, Hare v. See Hare v. Waring. 
 Warner ex parte, in re Thomas. See Thomas in re, ex parte 
 
 Warner. 
 
 Warner v. Murray (1889), 16 S. C. R. 720 451 
 
 Warnock v. Kloepfer, 14 O. R. 288; 15 O. A. R. 324; 18 S. C. R. 
 
 701 64 
 
 Warr, Denny v. See Denny v. Warr. 
 
 Warrant Finance Co., Humber Ironworks & Shipbuilding Co. 
 
 in re. See Humber Ironworks & Shipbuilding Co. in re, 
 
 ex parte Warrant Finance Co. 
 Warren in re, ex parte Trustee. (1900), 2 Q. B. 138; 69 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 425; 82 L. T. 502; 7 Mans. 137 346 
 
TABLE Of CASES. cxxxi 
 
 pac!f. 
 Warren ex Darte (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 48; 54 L. J. Q. B. 320; 2 
 
 Mor. 142 88 
 
 Warren, Robson v. See Robson v. Warren. 
 
 Wasdale in re (1899), 1 Ch. 163; 68 L. J. Ch. 117; 79 L. T. 520; 
 
 47 W. R. 169 310 
 
 Washington, etc.. Co. in re (1893). 3 Ch. 95; 2 R. 523; 62 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 895 ; 69 L. T. 27 ; 41 W. R. 681 323, 342 
 
 Waterhouse v. Jameson (1870), L. R. 2 H. L. Se. 29, 37, 38 39 
 
 Waters in re, ex parte (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 701; 4« L. J. Bank. 
 
 128 497 
 
 Watkins in re, ex parte Evans (1880), 13 Ch. D. 252; 49 L. J. 
 
 Bank 7 ; 41 L. T. 565 ; 28 W. R. 127 188 
 
 Watkins v. Maule (1820), 2 Jacob & Walker 237, 243 78 
 
 Watkinson ex parte, in re Wilson. See Wilson in re, ex parte 
 
 Watkinson. 
 Watkinson, Reg. v. See Reg. v. Watkinson. 
 Watson in re, Turner v. Watson (1896), 1 Ch. 925; 65 L. J. Ch. 
 
 553; 74 L. T. 453 445 
 
 Watson ex parte, in re Love. See Love in re, ex parte Watson. 
 Watson ex parte, in re Walker. See Walker in re, ex parte 
 
 Watson. 
 Watson, Alderson v. (No. 1). See Alderson v. Watson. 
 Watson, Alderson v. (No. 2). See Alderson v. Watson. 
 Watson, Armstrong v. See Armstrong v. Watson. 
 Watson v. Holliday (1882), 20 Ch. D. 780; 52 L. J. Ch. 543; 48 
 
 L. T. 545 418 
 
 Watson, Kettlewell v. See Kettlewell v. Watson. 
 
 Watson & Co. in re, ex parte Lloyd (1904), 91 L. T. 665 285 
 
 Watson, Rose v. See Rose v. Watson. 
 
 Watson and Smith in re, ex parte Oram (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 399; 
 
 52 L. T. 785 ; 2 Mor. 199 .. , 136 
 
 Watts, Morrison v. See Morrison v. Watts. 
 
 Watts v. Watts (1908), A. C. 573 15 
 
 Waugh in re, ex parte Dickin (1876), 4 Ch. D. 524; 46 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 26 ; 35 L. T. 769 ; 25 W. R. 258 101, 288, 362, 368 
 
 Wayman in re, ex parte O. R. (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 68; 59 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 28; 61 L. J. Q. B. 28; 38 W. R. 95; 6 Mor. 272 398 
 
 Wearing. Butler v. See Butler v. Wearing. 
 
 Webb in re, ex parte Board of Trade (1914), 3 K. B. 387; 83 
 
 L. J. K. B. 1386; 111 L. T. 175; 58 S. J. 581; 21 Man. 169. 
 
 220 221 222 
 Webb in re, ex parte Gibbs (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 382; 44 L. J.' 
 
 Bank. 73 ; 32 L. T. 292 406, 495 
 
 Webb v. Fox (1797) , 7 T. R. 391 294 
 
 Webb, Heather v. See Heather Y. Webb. 
 Webb, Richardson v. See Richardson v. Webb. 
 Webber, United States v. See United States v. Webber. 
 
 Webster in re, ex parte Poster (1886), 3 Mor. 132 225, 571 
 
 Webster in re, ex parte O. R. (1907), 1 K. B. 623; 76 L. J. K. B. 
 
 380; 96 L. T. 332; 51 Sol. J. 230; 14 Man. 20 82, 148, 187 
 
 Webster v. Crickmore (1898), 25 O. A. R. 97 348, 349 
 
 Weighill in re, ex parte O. R. (1909), 1 K. B. 92; 78 L. J. K. B. 
 
 86; 100 L. T. 58; 15 Man. 335 574, 648 
 
 Weill. Klauber v. See Klauber v. Weill. 
 
 Weinberg in re, ex parte O. R. (1907), 96 L. T. 790; 14 Man. 
 
 277 512, 513, 603, 642 
 
 Welch in re, ex parte Stone (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 914; 42 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 73 448 
 
 Wellbanks v. Heney (1890), 19 O. R. 549 349 
 
 Wellock, Cook v. See Cook v. Wellock. 
 
 Wells in re, ex parte Collins (1892), 9 Mor. 191; 66 L. T. 688.. 638 
 
 Wells in re, ex parte Sheriff of Kent (1893), 68 L. T. (N.S.) 231; 
 
 10 Mor. 69 191 
 
 Wells in re, ex parte Trustee (1892) , 9 Mor. 116 509 
 
 Wells & Croft in re, ex parte Official Receiver (1894), 72 L. T. 
 
 359; 2 Mans. 41 150 
 
( . xxx ii TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Wemyss in re, ex parte (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 244; 53 L. J. Q. B. . 
 
 496 ; 32 W. R. 1002 ; 1 Mor. 157 592 
 
 Wendt in re, ex parte O. R. (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 733; 61 L. T. 
 
 286 ; 6 Mor. 127 666 
 
 Wenger, Beattie v. See Beattie v. Wenger. 
 
 Wenham in re, ex parte Battams (1900), 2 Q. B. 698; 69 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 803; 48 W. R. 626; 83 L. T. 94; 7 Man. 309 583, 584, 606 
 
 Wensley in re, ex parte (1862), 1 DeG. J. & S. 273; 32 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 23 . . .' 175 
 
 West in re, ex parte Good (1882), 21 Ch. D. 868; 51 L. J. Ch. 
 
 831 513, 669 
 
 West v Ames Holden Co. (1897), 3 Ter. L. R. 17 286 
 
 West v. Baker (1875), 1 Ex. D. 44; 45 L. J. Bank. 113; 34 L. T. 
 
 102 . . . . 544 
 
 West, Embury v. See Embury v. West. 
 
 West v. Williams (1899), 1 Ch. 132; 68 L. J. Ch. 127; 79 L. T. 
 
 575 ; 47 W. R. 308 289 
 
 West Cannock Colliery Co. ex parte, in re Pearson. See Pearson 
 
 in re, ex- parte West Cannock Colliery. 
 West Coast Gold Fields Ltd. in re (1906), 1 Ch. 1; 75 L. J. Ch. 
 
 23; 93 L. T. 609; 54 W. R. 116; 12 Mans. 414 421 
 
 West Coast Gold Fields Ltd. ex parte, in re Rowe. See Rowe 
 
 in re, ex parte West Coast Gold Fields. 
 Western Coal Co. Ltd. in re, White & Sutherland's Claim 
 
 (1913), 7 O. L. R. 29; 25 W. L. R. 26; 12 D. L. R. 401; 
 
 4 W. W. R. 1238 464 
 
 Western Canada Flour Mills Co Ltd. v. The White Bakery 
 
 (1921), 1 C. B. R. 390 (Blain, M.C.) 188 
 
 Western v. Harris (1889), L. J. U. C. 113 359 
 
 Westmacott v. Robins (1864) , 4 DeG. F. & J. 390 86 
 
 Westminster Tramway Co., Edison Electric v. See Edison Elec- 
 tric v. Westminster Tramway Co. 
 West Riding Bank ex parte, in re Turner. See Turner in re, 
 
 ex parte West Riding Bank. 
 
 Wetherell v. Julius (1850), 19 L. J. C. P. 367 297 
 
 Weymouth & Channel Island Steam Packet Co. in re (1891), 
 
 1 Ch. 66 ; 394 
 
 Whalley in re, ex parte Warburg (1883), 24 Ch. D. 364; 53 
 
 L. J. Ch. 336 651, 655 
 
 Whatman (1889) , W. N. 213 299 
 
 Wheatley's Trustee in re (1901), 85 L. T. 491 103 
 
 Whelan in re, ex parte, Sadler (1878), 48 L. J. Bank. 43; 39 
 
 L. T. 361; 27 W. R. 156 131, 395 
 
 Wherly in re, ex parte Hirst (1879), 11 Ch. D. 665; 27 W. R. 788. 163 
 Whetham, Pooley's Trustee v. See Pooley's Trustee v. Whetham. 
 
 Whicher in re, ex parte Stevens (1888) , 5 Mor. 173 510 
 
 Whinney ex parte, in re David & Johnson or Adlard. See In re 
 
 David & Johnson or Adlard. 
 Whinney ex parte, in re Grant. See Grant in re, ex parte 
 
 Whinney. 
 Whinney ex parte, in re Harrison, Ingram & Co. See Harrison, 
 
 Ingram & Co. in re, ex parte Whinney. 
 Whinney, Colonial Bank v. See Colonial Bank v. Whinney. 
 
 White in re (1863), 9 L. T. (N.S.) 702 527 
 
 White in re (1920), 19 O. W N. 26 (Orde, J.) 177, 606 
 
 White in re, ex parte Mason (1880), 14 Ch D. 71; 49 L. J. Bank. 
 
 56; 42 L. T. 884 395 
 
 White in re, ex parte Nichols (1902) , W. N p. 114 271 
 
 White in re, ex parte Ward (1898), 1 Mor 77; 78 L. T. 75; 
 
 5 Mans. 17 143 
 
 White ex parte (1792), 2 Ves. Jr. 9 229 
 
 White ex parte (1814), 3 V. & B. 128 113, 117 
 
 White ex parte, in re Bumpus. See In re Bumpus, ex parte 
 
 White. 
 White ex parte, in re Gearing. See Gearing in re, ex parte 
 White. 
 
TABLE OF CASES. cxxxiii 
 
 PACK 
 
 White ex parte, in re Howes. See Howes in re, ex parte White. 
 White ex parte, in re Neville. See Neville in re, ex parte White. 
 White *. Butt (1909). 1 K. B. 50; 78 L. J. K. B. 65; 99 L. T. 823. 264 
 White v. Chitty (1865), L. R. 1 Eq. 372; 35 L. J. Ch. 347; 13 
 
 L. T. 750 ; 14 W. R. 136 289 
 
 White, Clarkson v. See Clarkson v. White. 
 
 White v. Cuthbertson (1867), 17 U. C. C. P. 377 174 
 
 White, Dumble v. See Dumble v. White. 
 
 White v. Elliott (1870), 30 U. C. Q. B. 253 297 
 
 White v. Foljambe (1805), 11 Ves. 337 259 
 
 White. Hersee v. See Hersee v. White. 
 
 White v. Hunt (1870) , L. R. 6 Ex. 32 485 
 
 White, McCrae v. See McCrae v. White. 
 
 White, Morley v. See Morley v. White. 
 
 White v. Sewell. in re Sewell. See Sewell in re. 
 
 White v. Simmons (1871-), L. R. 6 Ch. 555; 40 L. J. Ch. 689. .163. 557 
 
 White Bros. Ltd. ex parte, in re Reynolds. See Reynolds in re, 
 
 ex parte White Bros. Ltd.. 
 White & Company v. The " Iona " (1921), 1 C. B. R. 415 
 
 (Hodgins, L.J.) 228 
 
 White & Co. in re, ex parte O. R. (1884), 1 Mor. 77 338, 669 
 
 White Star Hotel v. Turgeon (1915). 17 Que. P. R. 299 293, 465 
 
 478, 481 
 Whitehead in re and ex parte (1885). 14 Q. B. D. 419; 54 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 240 ; 52 L. T. 597 ; 33 W. R. 471 294 
 
 Whitehead, Holroyd v. See Holroyd v. Whitehead. 
 
 Whitely, Blount v. See Blount v. Whitely. 
 
 Whiteman ex parte, in re Newey. See Newey in re, ex parte 
 
 Whiteman. 
 Whitley in re, ex parte Mirfield Commercial Co. (1891) , 65 L. T. 
 
 351 ; 8 Mor. 149 137 
 
 Whitlock in re, ex parte O. R. (1894), 63 L. J. K. B. 245; 70 L T. 
 
 34; 1 Mans. 33 i44, 145 
 
 Whiting v. Hovey (1886), 13 O. A. R. 7; 14 S. C. R. 515. .174, 192, 608 
 
 Whitmore v. Gilmour (1845), 12 M. & W. 808 70 
 
 Whitmore, Reeve v. See Reeve v. Whitmore. 
 
 Whitnall in re, ex parte (1882), 20 Ch. D. 438; 46 L. T. 755 606 
 
 Whittaker ex parte, in re Shackleton. See Shackleton in re, 
 
 ex parte Whittaker. 
 Whitten, Hawkins v. See Hawkins v. Whitten. 
 Whitton ex parte, in re Greaves. See Greaves in re, ex parte 
 
 Whitton. 
 
 Whyte v. Treadwell (1867), 17 U. C. C P. 488 140, 187 
 
 Wiarton Beet Sugar Co. (1905), 10 O. L. R. 219; 6 O. W. R. 590. 
 
 323, 595 
 Wickson. Davis v. See Davis v. Wickson. 
 Widdop, Reg. v. See Reg. v. Widdop. 
 Wigan v. English & Scottish Life Assurance Co. (1909), 1 Ch. 
 
 291 365 
 
 Wiggins. ex parte (1832), M. & Bl. 168 550 
 
 Wiggins, Reed v. See Reed v. Wiggins. 
 
 Wike in re, ex parte Keighley (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 667; 44 L J 
 
 Bank. 13; 22 W. R. 630; 30 L. T. 407 591," 592 
 
 Wilcock, Pearson v. See Pearson v. Wilcock. 
 Wilcox, Ontario Bank v. See Ontario Bank v. Wilcox. 
 
 Wilcox v. Wilcox (1857), 8 L. C. R. 34 6 
 
 Wilcoxon in re, ex parte Griffith (1883), 23 Ch. D. 69 ■ 52 L J 
 
 Ch. 717; 48 L. T. 450; 31 W. R. 878 112' 346 
 
 Wild v. Southwood (1897), 1 Q. B. 317; 66 L. J. Q B 166- 75 
 
 L. T. 386; 15 W. R. 224; 3 Man. 303 ' 3R7 
 
 Wild v. Tucker (1914), 3 K. B. 36; 30 T. L. R. 507- 83 L ' J 
 
 K. B. 1410 ; 21 Man. 181 ' '539 
 
 Wilding ex parte, in re Morgan. See Morgan in re, ex parte 
 Wilding. 
 
 Wilkes v. Bodington (1707), 2 Vern. 599 332 
 
 Wilkie Ltd., Fisher v. See Fisher v. Wilkie Ltd. 
 
CXXXIV TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Wilkins v. Carmichael (1779), 1 Doug. (K.B.) 101, 104 85 
 
 Wilkins v. Fry (1816), 1 Mer. 244, 265; 15 P. R. 110 485 
 
 Wilkinson in re, ex parte Fowler (1905), 2 K. B. 713; 74 L>J. 
 
 K. B. 969; 51 W. R. 157; 12 Man. 377 ' 41 84 
 
 Wilkinson in re, ex parte Stubbins (1880), 17 Ch. D. 58; 53 L. J. ' 
 
 Ch. 547; 44 L. T. 877; 29 W. R. 653 352 
 
 Wilkinson ex parte, in re Berry. See In're Berry, ex parte 
 
 Wilkinson. 
 Willes, Curteis v. See Curteis v. Willes. 
 
 William Hamilton Mfg. Co. in re (1909), 1 0. W. N. 61, 421.. 40, 42 
 William Hamilton Mtg. Co. v. Hamilton Steel and Iron Co. 
 
 (1910), 23 O. L. R. 270; (1911), 18 O. W. R. 739; 2 O. W. N. 
 
 779; sub nom. Hamilton v. Hamilton Steel Co 301, 303 
 
 William Lamb Mfg. Co. of Ottawa in re (1900), 32 O. R. 243. .136, 139 
 
 Williams in re (1871), 31 U. C. R. 143 284 
 
 Williams in re (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 690; 42 L. J. Bank. 28; 21 
 
 W. R. 451; 28 L. T. 488 149, 653 
 
 Williams in re, ex parte O. R. (1888), 5 Mor. 103 637 
 
 Williams ex parte (1835), 4 D. & C. 180 488 
 
 Williams ex parte, in re Kit Hill Tunnel Co. See Kit Hill 
 
 Tunnel Co. in re, 6x parte Williams. 
 Williams ex parte, in re Thompson. See Thompson in re, ex 
 
 parte Williams. 
 Williams v. Dominion Trust (1916), 31 D. L. R. 786; 23 B. C. R. 
 
 461 (1917), 1 W. W. R. 664 262 
 
 Williams, Dumeld v. in re Berry. See In re Berry. 
 
 Williams v. Nunn (1809), 1 Taunt. 270 114 
 
 Williams v. Walsby (1802), 4 Bsp. 220 241 
 
 Williams, West v. See West y. Williams. 
 
 Williams, Arthur, & Co. in re, ex parte O. R. (1913), 2 K. B. 88; 
 
 82 L. J. K. B. 459; 108 L. T. 585; 20 Man. 21; 57 S. J. 285.. 577 
 Williamson in re, ex parte Threlfall (1876), 46 L. J. Bank 8; 
 
 35 L. T. 675; 25 W. R. 127 105 
 
 Williamson, Smith v. See Smith v. Williamson. 
 
 Wills v. Snook, 8 M. & W 500 
 
 Willson in re, ex parte Nicholson (1880), 14 Ch. D. 243; 49 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 68 ; 43 L T. 266 510 
 
 Wilmot v. Alton (1897), 1 Q. B. 17; 66 L. J. Q. B. 42; 75 L. T. 
 
 447; 45 W. R. 113; 4 Man. 17 83, 282 
 
 Wilmott v. London Celluloid Co. (1886), 34 Ch. D. D. 147; 56 
 
 L. J. Ch. 89 266, 342, 377 
 
 Wilson in re (1866), 14 L. T. 492 528 
 
 Wilson in re (1903), 6 O. L. R. 564 241 
 
 Wilson in re, ex parte Lord Hastings (1893), 62 L. J. Q. B. 628; 
 
 10 Mor. 219 484 
 
 Wilson in re, ex parte Vine (1878), 8 Ch. D. 364; 47 L. J. Bank. 
 
 116; 38 L. T. 327, 730; 26 W. R. 482 296, 297 
 
 Wilson in re, ex parte Watkinson (1887), 57 L. T. 201; 35 
 
 W. R. 668 ; 4 Mor. 238 579 
 
 Wilson in re, Carter v. Woodruff (1878-9), 3 O. A R. 151 467 
 
 Wilson ex parte (1840) , 1 M. D. & D. 68 414 
 
 Wilson ex parte, in re Athlumney. See In re Athlumney, ex 
 
 parte Wilson. 
 Wilson ex parte, in re Douglas. . See In re Douglas, ex parte , 
 
 Wilson. 
 Wilson ex parte, in re Smith. See Smith in re, ex parte Wilson. 
 Wilson, Borneman v. See Borneman y. Wilson. 
 Wilson, Burns & Lewis v. See Burns & Lewis v. Wilson.. 
 
 Wilson v. Cramp (1865), 11 Gr. 444 92, 95, 175. 
 
 Wilson, Fallis v. See Fallis v. Wilson. 
 Wilson, Forster v. See Forster v. Wilson. 
 Wilson, Gibbons v. See Gibbons v. Wilson. 
 
 Wilson v. Greenwobd ( 1818 ) , 18 Swans. 471, 481 288 
 
 Wilson, Robinson v. See Robinson v. Wilson. 
 
 Wilson v. Stevenson (1860), 12 Gr. 239 9fi 
 
 Wilson v. Wallani.(1880), 5 Ex D. 155; 49 L. J. Ex. 437; 42 
 
 L. T. 375 477, 483, 484, 485 
 
TABLE OF CASES. cxxxv 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Wilson & Bea'.ev ex parte, in re Carpenter. See Carpenter in re, 
 ex parte Wilson & Bealey. 
 
 Wilson Estate in re (1915), 33 0. L. R. 501 39, 40, 158, 193 
 
 Wilson & Mathieson ex parte, in re Pollock & Pendle. See Pol- 
 lock & Pendle in re, ex parte Wilson and Mathieson. 
 Winder ex parte, in re Winstanley. See Winstanley in re, ex 
 
 parte Winder. 
 Winder. Roscoe Ltd. v. See Roscoe Ltd. v. Winder. 
 Wingfleld k Blew ex parte, in re Bright. See In re Bright, ex 
 
 parte Wingfleld & Blew. 
 Winn in re, ex parte Russell (1876), 2 Ch. D. 424; 45 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 85; 31 L. T. 295; 24 W. R. 802 273 
 
 Winnipeg Cigar Co.. Bartel's Shewan & Co. Ltd. v. See Bartels 
 
 Shewan Co. Ltd. v. Winnipeg Cigar Co. Ltd. 
 Winnipeg & Western Development Co. in re (1915), 33 W. L. R. 
 
 749 ; 9 W. W. R. 1360 557 
 
 Winkler, Schwartz v See Schwartz v. Winkler. 
 
 Winslow in re. ex parte Godfrey (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 696; 55 L. J. 
 
 Q. B. 238 ; 3 Mor. 60 513, 669 
 
 Winstanley in re, ex Darte Shein or Winder (1876), 1 Ch. D. 
 290. 560; 45 L. J. Bank. 14, 89; 33 L. T. 615; 34 L. T. 48; 24 
 
 W. R. 685 104, 105 
 
 Wise in re. ex parte Registrar Croydon Co. Court (1886), 17 
 
 Q. B. D. 389; 55 L. J. Q. B. 362; 3 Mor. 174 571. 650 
 
 Wiseman, Rex. v. See Rex. v. Wiseman. 
 
 Winwood's Settlement in re, Fisher v. Trustee (1916), H. B R. 
 
 158 331 
 
 Withers, Bryant v. See Bryant v. Withers. 
 
 Woddel's Contract in re (1876), 2 Ch. D. 172; 45 L. J. Ch. 647. . 96 
 
 Wolff v. Van Boolen (1906), 94 L. T. 502 266. 298. 299 
 
 Wolmershausen in re (1890), 62 L. T. 541 135 
 
 Wolmershausen v. Guliick (1893), 3 R. 610; 2 Ch. 514; 62 L. J. 
 
 Ch. 773 ; 68 L. T. 753 420 
 
 Wolverhampton & Staffordshire Banking Co. ex parte, in re 
 Campbell. See In re Campbell ex parte Wolverhampton & 
 Staffordshire Banking CO., in re Campbell. 
 Wombell, Ryder v. See Ryder v. Wombell. 
 Wood in re ex parte Panshawe (1897), 12 B. 314; 66 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 69 ; 3 Mans. 299 570 
 
 Wood in re, ex parte Leslie & Co., Ltd. (1915), 1 H. B. R. 53; 59 
 
 Sol. J. 334 519 
 
 Wood in re, ex parte Luckes (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 302; 41 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 21; 20 W. R. 403 93, 95, 99, 100, 102. 113 
 
 Wood in re, ex parte Mayou (1865), 4 De G. J. & S. 664; 11 Jur. 
 
 ( N. S. ) 433 ; 34 L. J. Bank. 25 ; 12 L. T. 254 ; 13 W. R. 629 . . . 108 
 Wood in re, ex parte Musgrave (1878), 10 Ch. D. 94; 48 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 39; 39 L. T. 647; 26 W. R. 915 565 
 
 Wood ex parte, in re Burden. See Burden in re, ex parte Wood. 
 Wood ex parte, in re Wright. See Wright in re, ex parte Wood. 
 Wood v. Ambler in re Ambler. See In re Ambler ex parte 
 
 Ambler v. Wood. 
 Wood, B. N. A. v. See B. N. A. v. Wood. 
 Wood v. Barker (1865), L. R. 1 Eq. 139; 35 L. J. Ch. 276; 13 
 
 L. T. 318 ; 14 W. R. 47 o 17 
 
 Wood v. Dunn (1866), L. R. 6 Q. B. 73; 36 L. J. Q. B. 27; 15 L T 
 
 411; 15 W. R. 180 82, 147, 187. 201 
 
 Wood v. Jagger (1908), 9 W. L. R. 120 .' . . . 40 
 
 Wood. Stevenson v. See Stevenson v. Wood. 
 
 Woodhouse v. Murray (1868). L. R. 4 Q. B. 27; 38 L J Q B 
 
 28; 17 W. R. 206 105 
 
 Wooding in re. ex parte Coates (1833), 3 D. & C. 626; 1 M. & A 
 
 328 268, 269 
 
 Woodland, Adams v. See Adams v. Woodland. 
 
 Wood, Eailton v. See Railton v. Wdod. 
 
 Woodroff ex parte, in re (1897), 76 L. T. 502; 4 Man. 46 98. 128 
 
cxxxvi TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Woodruff, Carter v., in re Wilson. See In re Wilson, Carter v. 
 
 Woodruff. 
 Woods in re, ex parte Ditton (1879), 11 Ch. D. 56; 40 L. T. 297 
 
 27 W. R. 401 395 
 
 Woodthorpe ex parte, in re Rogers. See Rogers in re, ex parte 
 
 Woodtbrorpe. 
 Woolford's Trustees v. Levy (1892), 1 Q. B. 772; 61 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 546; 66 L. T. 812; 40 W. R. 483; 8 Mor. 200 155, 187, 191 
 
 Woolrich, Connolly v. See Connally v. Woolrich. 
 
 Woolstenholme in re, ex parte Foster (1887), 4 Mor. 258 113, 115 
 
 Worsley in re, ex parte Lambert (1901)., 1 K. B. 309; 70 L J. 
 
 K. B. 93; 84 L. T. 100; 49 W. R. 182; 17 T. L. R. 122; 8 
 
 Man. 8 58, 61, 116 
 
 Worsley v. De G. Mattos (1758), 1 Burr 467 95, 102 
 
 Worthington in re, ex parte Pathe Freres (1914), 2 K. B. 299; 
 
 83 L. J. K. B. 885; 110 L. T. 43, 599; 58 Sol. J. 252; 21 Man. 
 
 119 70,302 
 
 Worthington ex parte, in re Cumberland. See Cumberland in 
 
 re, ex parte Worthington. 
 Wray in re (1887), 36 Ch. D. 138; 56 L. J. Ch. 737, 1106; 57 L. T. 
 
 G05 ; 36 W. R. 67 155, 156 
 
 Wreck Recovery and Salvage Co. in re (1880), L. R. 15 Ch. D. 
 
 353; 56 L J. Q. B. 291 261, 262 
 
 Wreyford ex parte, in re Ashby. See In re Ashby, ex parte 
 
 Wreyford. 
 Wright in re, ex parte Arnold (1876), 3 Ch. D. 70; 45 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 30; 35 L. T. 21; 24 W. R. 977 362, 365, 367 
 
 Wright, in re, ex parte Sheen (1877), 6 Ch. D. 235; 37 L. T. 451; 
 
 26 W. R. 195 469 
 
 Wright in re, ex parte Wood (1879), 10 Ch. D. 554; 39 L. T. 
 
 646; 27 W. R. 401 . . 407 
 
 Wright ex parte (1841) , 2 M. D. & D. 434 '. . . 414 
 
 Wright ex parte, in re Briggs & Co. See In re Briggs & Co., 
 
 ex parte Wright. 
 Wright ex parte, in re Johnson. See Johnson in - re, ex parte 
 
 Wright. 
 Wright, Baines v. See Baines v. Wright. 
 Wright, Brown v. See Brown v. Wright. 
 
 Wright v. Fearnley (1838), 5 Bing. N. C. 89 366 
 
 Wright v. Hollingshead (1895), 23 O. A. R. 1 286 
 
 Wright v. Mills (1859), 28 L. J. Ex. 223 140, 187 
 
 Wyld v. Clarkson (1886), 12 O. R. 589 78,' 79 
 
 X. in re (1920), 19 O. W. N. 12 65:' 
 
 X. in re (1920), 19 O. W. N. 12; 1 C„ B. R. 459 (Holmsted 
 
 R.) 126,671 
 
 Xenos in re (1921), 1 C. B. R. 470 151 
 
 X. Y. in re, ex parte Haes (1902), 1 K. B. 98; 71 L. J. K. B. 102; 
 
 85 L. T. 564; 50 W. R. 182; 9 Man. 5 133 
 
 Yalden ex parte, in re Austin. See In re Austin, ex parte Yalden. 
 
 Yale v. Tollerton (1866), 2 Ch. Chamb. 49 263,632 
 
 Yarrington v. Lyon (1866), 12 Gr. 308 ' 171, 243, 536 
 
 Yates in re, ex parte Brown (1879), 11 Ch. D. 148; 48 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 78; 27 W. R. 651; 40 L. T. 402 47, 564 
 
 Yates. Dixon v. See Dixon v. Yates. 
 
 Yeatman in re, ex parte (1880), 16 Ch. D. 283; 29 W. R. 457; 
 
 44 L. T. 260 605, 606, 656 
 
 Yeatma'n in re ex parte (1916), 1 K. B. 780; 85 L. J. K. B. 789; 
 
 2 H. B. R. 30 268, 269, 282, 575 
 
 Yellowhead Pass Coal Co., Capital Trust v. See Capital Trust v. 
 
 Yellowhead Pass Coal Co. 
 Yelverton, Bubb v.- See Bubb v. Yelverton. 
 Yeomans and Heap ex parte, in re Larard. See Larard in re, ex 
 
 parte Yeomans & Heap. 
 York, Holloway v. See Holloway v. York. 
 Yorke's Case, in re Central Bank. See Central Bank in re 
 
 Yorke's Case. 
 
TABLE OF CASES. cxxxvii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Yorkshire Woolcombers Association (1903), 2 Ch. 284 83 
 
 Young in re ex parte (1885), W. N. 12; 2 Mor. 37 528 
 
 Young ex parte, in re Kitchen. See Kitchen in re, ex parte 
 
 Young. 
 Young, Chaplin v. See Chaplin v. Young. 
 Young. Falls v. See Falls v. Young. 
 
 Young v. Hope (1848), 2 Ex. 104, 108 358 
 
 Young, Lamb v. See Lamb v. Young. 
 Young, Magill v. See Magill v. Young. 
 
 Young v. Spiers (1889), 16 0. R. 672 438 
 
 Young & Parker ex parte, in re Holland. See Holland in re, ex 
 
 parte Young & Parker. 
 Zarbok, International Harvester Co. v. See International Har- 
 
 VGStcr Co v Zcirtoolv 
 Zimmerman v. Sproat (1912), 26 0. L. R. 448; 5 D. L. R. 452.40, 264 
 Zucco in re, ex parte Cooper (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 510; 44 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 121; 23 W. R. 782 266, 342, 377 
 
TABLE OF SECTIONS 
 
 TABLE OF CORRESPONDING ENGLISH AND CANADIAN 
 SECTIONS. * 
 
 45 Geo. V. c. 59 (Imp.), and 9-10 Geo. V. c. 36 (Dom.) 
 
 English Act 
 
 Section 
 1. (l)a 
 
 b 
 
 c 
 
 a 
 
 e 
 
 f 
 g 
 h 
 
 10. 
 
 11. 
 12. 
 13. 
 
 14. 
 
 15. 
 
 16. 
 
 (2) 
 
 (1) 
 (2) 
 (1) 
 (2) 
 (3) 
 (4) 
 (5) 
 (6) 
 (7) 
 
 (1) (2) 
 
 (1) 
 (2) 
 (1) 
 
 (2) (3) 
 
 (1) (2) 
 
 (3) 
 
 (4) 
 
 (1) (2) 
 (3) 
 
 (4) 
 
 (5) (6) 
 
 (7) 
 
 (8) 
 
 (9) (10) 
 
 (1) 
 
 (2) (3) 
 (4) 
 
 (5) 
 (6) 
 (") 
 (8) 
 (9) 
 (10) 
 
 Canadian Act 
 
 Section 
 3. a 
 
 b 
 
 c 
 
 d 
 
 e 
 
 J 
 
 (o) 
 
 (5) 
 (3) 
 
 (2) 
 (5) 
 (6) 
 
 (7) 
 (8) 
 (9) 
 
 (1) 
 
 (1) 
 
 11. (4) 
 
 see 6 (4) 
 42. (1) 
 
 54. (1) 
 
 (2) 
 see 56(1) 
 
 13. 
 
 English Act 
 
 Skition 
 
 (11) 
 
 (12) 
 (13) 
 (14) 
 (15) 
 (16) 
 
 (17) (18) 
 (19) 
 (20) 
 17. 
 18. 
 19. 
 20. 
 21. 
 
 22. (1) 
 (2) 
 (3) 
 (4) 
 (1) 
 (2) 
 
 24. 
 25. 
 
 26. 
 
 (1) 
 (2) 
 (3) 
 (4) 
 (5) 
 (6) 
 (1) 
 (2) 
 (3) 
 (4) 
 (5) 
 (6) 
 (7) 
 (8) 
 (9) 
 
 
 28. 
 
 (1) 
 
 
 
 (2) 
 
 
 
 (3) 
 
 
 
 (4) 
 
 
 29. 
 
 (1) 
 
 (1) 
 
 
 (2 ) 
 (3) 
 
 (3) 
 
 
 (4) 
 
 (4) 
 
 30. 
 
 (1) 
 
 (5) 
 
 
 (2) 
 
 (6) (7) 
 
 
 (3) 
 (4) 
 
 ( c 7) 
 
 
 (5) 
 
 (8) 
 
 
 (6) (71 (8) 
 
 (9) 
 
 31. 
 
 
 Canadian Act 
 Suction 
 (10) 
 (ID 
 (12) 
 
 (13) 
 (14) 
 (15) 
 (16) 
 (17) 
 13. (19) 
 
 43. 
 13. 
 54. 
 
 55. 
 
 56. 
 
 (18) 
 (3) 
 (4) 
 (5) 
 (6) 
 0> 
 (2) 
 
 (1) (4) 
 
 (2) (5) 
 (2) (5) 
 (7) 
 
 (8) 
 
 55. (1) 
 
 (4) (5) 
 59. 
 
 60. (3) 
 60. (1) 
 
 (2) 
 58. (2) 60 (4) 
 60. (6) 
 
 60. 
 61. 
 
 62. 
 
 44. 
 
 44. 
 
 (71 
 (1) 
 (2) 
 (4) 
 (3) 
 (1) 
 (2) 
 (3) 
 (4) 
 (1) 
 
 (2) 
 (3) 
 
cxl 
 
 TABLE OF SECTIONS 
 
 English Act 
 
 Canadian Act 
 
 E.NGLISI] 
 
 Act 
 
 Canadian Act 
 
 
 Section 
 
 
 Secti 
 
 ox 
 
 
 Section 
 
 
 Section 
 
 32. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 59. 
 
 
 
 22. 
 
 (2) 
 
 33. 
 
 (1) 
 (2) 
 
 
 51. 
 
 (6) 
 
 (1) 
 
 60. 
 Gl. 
 
 
 
 19. 
 22. 
 
 (3) 
 (1) 
 
 
 (3) 
 
 
 51. 
 
 (2) 
 
 
 62, 
 
 (l)(2)C!l 
 
 37. 
 
 (1) 
 
 
 (4) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (4) 
 
 (5) 
 
 
 (2) 
 
 
 (5) 
 
 
 
 
 
 63. 
 
 (1) 
 
 
 
 (4) 
 
 
 (6) 
 
 
 51. 
 
 (3) 
 
 
 
 (2) 
 
 
 
 (5) 
 
 
 (7) 
 
 
 
 (4) 
 
 
 64. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (8) 
 
 
 
 (5) 
 
 
 65. 
 
 
 
 37. 
 
 (3) 
 
 
 (9) 
 
 
 
 
 
 66. 
 
 (1) 
 
 (2) 
 
 
 
 34. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 67. 
 
 (1) 
 
 (2) 
 
 37. 
 
 (6) (7) 
 
 35. 
 
 
 
 
 see 52 
 
 
 68. 
 
 
 
 37. 
 
 (9) 
 
 36. 
 
 (1) 
 (2) 
 
 
 4S. 
 
 (1) 
 (2) 
 
 
 69. 
 70. 
 
 
 
 38. 
 
 
 37. 
 
 (1) 
 
 (2) 
 
 4. 
 
 (10) 
 
 
 71. 
 
 
 
 
 
 38. 
 
 (1) 
 
 2 (a) 
 
 (c) 
 
 (b) 
 
 25. 
 
 (1) 
 
 (2) 
 
 
 72. 
 73. 
 74. 
 
 
 
 
 
 39. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 75. 
 
 
 
 
 
 40. 
 
 (1) 
 
 (2) 
 
 j.±. 
 
 (1) 
 
 (2) 
 
 76. 
 
 
 
 16. 
 
 
 41. 
 
 (1) 
 
 (2) 
 
 
 (3) 
 
 
 77. 
 
 (1) 
 
 (2) 
 
 15. 
 
 (2) 
 
 42. 
 
 
 
 29. 
 
 
 
 78. 
 79. 
 
 (1) 
 
 
 
 
 43. 
 
 
 
 30. 
 
 
 
 
 (2) 
 
 
 42. 
 
 (3) 
 
 44. 
 
 (1) 
 
 (2) 
 (3) 
 
 
 30. 
 
 (1) 
 
 
 
 (2) 
 (4) 
 
 
 
 
 45. 
 
 
 
 32. 
 
 
 
 80. 
 
 
 
 39. 
 
 
 46. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SI. 
 
 
 
 
 
 47. 
 
 
 
 34. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 48. 
 
 (1) 
 
 (2) 
 
 17. 
 
 (1) 
 
 (2) 
 
 82. 
 
 (D(2)i::i 
 
 40. 
 
 (1) (2) (I 
 
 
 (3) 
 
 (4) 
 
 
 
 
 
 (4) 
 
 
 
 
 
 (5) 
 
 (6) 
 
 
 
 
 
 (5) 
 
 
 
 
 49. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 83. 
 
 (1) 
 
 
 
 
 50. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (2) 
 
 
 
 
 51. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (3) 
 
 
 
 
 52. 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (4) 
 
 
 
 
 53. 
 
 (1) 
 (3) 
 (4) 
 
 (2) 
 
 6. 
 
 (3) 
 
 
 84. 
 85. 
 
 
 
 
 
 54. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 86 
 
 
 
 23. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 but see 
 
 87. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 52. 
 
 (5) 
 
 
 88. 
 
 
 
 26. 
 
 (3) 
 
 55 . 
 
 (1) 
 (2) 
 (3) 
 (4) 
 (5) 
 
 
 20. 
 
 (1) 
 
 (a) 
 
 89. 
 90. 
 91. 
 92. 
 93. 
 
 
 
 
 
 56. 
 
 (1) 
 
 
 20. 
 
 (1) 
 
 (b) 
 
 94. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (2) 
 
 
 
 
 (c) 
 
 95. 
 
 (1) 
 
 
 15. 
 
 (1) 
 
 
 (3) 
 
 
 
 
 (d) 
 
 
 (2) 
 
 
 
 
 
 (4) 
 
 
 
 
 (e) 
 
 96. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (5) 
 
 
 
 
 (f) 
 
 97. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (6) 
 
 
 
 
 (g) 
 
 98. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (7) 
 
 
 
 
 (h) 
 
 99. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (8) 
 
 
 
 
 (i) 
 
 100. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (») 
 
 
 
 
 (i) 
 
 101. 
 102. 
 
 
 
 64. 
 65. 
 
 (3) 
 
 57. 
 
 
 
 2j. 
 
 
 
 103. 
 
 
 
 
 
 58. 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 104. 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF SECTIONS 
 
 cxli 
 
 E 
 
 -vqlisii Act 
 
 C. 
 
 ixadian Act 
 
 English Act 
 
 Canadian Act 
 
 
 Section 
 
 
 Section 
 
 
 Section 
 
 Section 
 
 105. 
 
 (1) 
 
 
 
 152. 
 
 
 
 
 (2) 
 
 G4 
 
 (1) 
 
 153. 
 
 
 37. (8) 
 
 
 (3) 
 
 
 * 
 
 154. 
 
 (1) 
 
 89. (a) 
 
 106. 
 107. 
 108. 
 
 (4) 
 (5) 
 
 (1) 
 (2) 
 (3) 
 (1) 
 
 74. 
 
 (1) 
 
 
 (2) 
 (3) 
 (4) 
 (5) 
 (6) 
 (7) 
 
 (b) 
 (O 
 (d) 
 (e) 
 (f) 
 (g) 
 
 109. 
 
 68. 
 
 (2) 
 
 
 (S) 
 (9) 
 
 (h) 
 (i) 
 
 
 (2) 
 
 
 (3) 
 
 
 (10) 
 
 (J) 
 
 
 (3) 
 
 
 (4) 
 
 
 (H) 
 
 (k) 
 
 
 (4) 
 
 
 (5) 
 
 
 (12) 
 
 (1) 
 
 
 (5) 
 
 
 (6) 
 
 
 (13) 
 
 (m) 
 
 110. 
 
 
 
 (7) 
 
 
 (14) 
 
 (n) 
 
 111. 
 112. 
 
 
 
 (8) 
 (9) , 
 
 
 (15) 
 (16) 
 
 (o) 
 (p) 
 
 113. 
 
 
 
 (10) 
 
 155. 
 
 
 90. 
 
 114. 
 
 
 69. 
 
 (1) 
 
 156 
 
 
 
 115. 
 
 
 
 (2) 
 
 157. 
 
 
 
 116. 
 
 
 
 (3) 
 
 158. 
 
 
 91. 
 
 117. 
 
 
 70. 
 
 (1) 
 
 159. 
 
 
 
 118. 
 
 
 
 (3) 
 
 160. 
 
 
 
 119. 
 
 
 
 (2) 
 
 161. 
 
 
 93. 
 
 120. 
 
 
 
 
 162. 
 
 
 94. 
 
 121. 
 122. 
 
 
 71. 
 71. 
 
 (1) 
 (2) 
 
 163. 
 164. 
 
 (1) 
 
 95. (1) (2) 
 
 123. 
 
 (1) 
 
 (2) 
 
 72. 
 
 (1) 
 (2) 
 
 
 (2) 
 (3) 
 
 
 124. 
 125. 
 
 
 73. 
 
 75. 
 
 
 165. 
 
 (4) 
 
 95. (3) 
 
 126. 
 
 
 
 
 166.' 
 
 
 
 127. 
 
 
 76. 
 
 
 167. 
 
 
 2. 
 
 128. 
 
 
 
 
 168. 
 
 
 
 129. 
 
 
 
 
 169. 
 
 
 9S . 
 
 130. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 131. 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 132. 
 
 
 66. 
 
 
 
 
 
 133. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Schedule I. 
 
 134. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 135. 
 
 
 
 
 1. 
 
 2 
 
 11. (4) 42 (2) 
 
 136. 
 
 
 
 
 3. 
 
 4. 
 5. 
 
 R. 
 7. 
 S, 
 9. 
 
 
 
 137. 
 138. 
 139. 
 
 (1) 
 (2) 
 (1) 
 
 (2) 
 
 77. 
 78. 
 
 (3) 
 
 (4) 
 (I) 
 
 2) 
 
 
 42. (3) 
 (4) 
 (5) 
 (9) 
 
 140. 
 141. 
 
 
 79. 
 SI. 
 
 
 10. 
 
 
 (10) 
 
 142. 
 143. 
 
 144. 
 145. 
 146. 
 147. 
 ]48. 
 
 
 SO. 
 
 82. 
 83. 
 84. 
 
 
 11. 
 
 12. 
 
 13. ' 
 
 14. 
 
 15. 
 
 16. 
 
 • 
 
 (11) 
 
 (12) 
 (13) 
 (13) 
 
 149. 
 
 
 So. 
 
 | 
 
 17-18 
 19. 
 
 
 
 150. 
 151. 
 
 
 86. 
 
 1 
 
 20 '. 
 21. 
 
 
 
cxlii 
 
 English Act 
 Section 
 
 22. 
 
 23. 
 24. 
 25. 
 26. 
 27. 
 28. 
 
 TABLE OF SECTIONS 
 
 Canadian Act 
 Section 
 
 (5) 
 (6) 
 (7) 
 (8) 
 
 6. 
 
 7. 
 
 8. 
 
 9. 
 10. 
 11. 
 12. 
 13. 
 
 14 . 
 15. 
 16. 
 17. 
 
 Schedule 
 
 45. 
 
 II. 
 
 (11 
 
 (2) 
 (3) 
 (4) 
 (5) 
 
 (6) 
 
 (a) 
 
 Co) 
 
 (cV 
 
 46. 
 
 (It 
 
 46. 
 
 (2) 
 
 
 (3) 
 
 
 (4) 
 
 
 (5) 
 
 
 (6) 
 
 
 (8) 
 
 
 (9) 
 
 
 (7) 
 
 
 (10) 
 
 English Act 
 Section 
 
 18. 
 
 19. 
 
 20. 
 
 21. 
 
 22. 
 
 23. 
 
 24. 
 
 25. 
 
 26. 
 
 27. 
 
 28. 
 
 Canadian Act 
 Section 
 
 (ID 
 
 47. 
 
 49 
 5u. 
 
 53. (3) 
 
 Schedule 
 
 IV. 
 
TABLE OF 11VLES. 
 
 cxliii 
 
 TABLE OF CORRESPONDING ENGLISH AND CANADIAN RULES. 
 
 English 
 
 Canadian 
 
 English 
 
 Caxamax 
 
 E.VGLISII 
 
 Canadian 
 
 Rile. 
 
 • 
 
 Rile. 
 
 Rile. 
 
 Rule. 
 
 Rule. 
 
 Rule. 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 69 
 
 39 
 
 179 
 
 92 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 70 
 
 40 
 
 182 
 
 93 
 
 4(2) 
 
 150 
 
 71 
 
 41 
 
 183 
 
 83 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 72 
 
 42 
 
 187 
 
 55 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 73 
 
 43 
 
 188 
 
 96 
 
 7 
 
 5 
 
 80 
 
 44 
 
 189 
 
 97 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 81 
 
 45 
 
 200 
 
 9S 
 
 10 
 
 7 
 
 S2 (1) 
 
 46 
 
 205 
 
 99 
 
 11 
 
 8 
 
 82 (2) 
 
 47 
 
 204 
 
 100 
 
 12 
 
 9 
 
 85 
 
 48 
 
 206 
 
 101 
 
 14 
 
 10 
 
 87 
 
 50 
 
 207 
 
 102 
 
 18 
 
 11(1) 
 
 88 
 
 51 
 
 208 
 
 103 
 
 22 
 
 11(2) 
 
 89 i 
 
 52 
 
 211 
 
 104 
 
 24 
 
 12 
 
 90 i" 
 
 216 
 
 105 
 
 26 
 
 14 
 
 91 
 
 53 
 
 219 
 
 106 
 
 27 
 
 15 
 
 96 
 
 54 
 
 228 
 
 135(1) (2) 
 
 28 
 
 16 
 
 98 
 
 56 
 
 229 
 
 136 
 
 32 
 
 17 
 
 103 
 
 57 
 
 231 
 
 137 
 
 33 
 
 18 
 
 112 
 
 58 
 
 232 
 
 138(1) 
 
 35 
 
 19 
 
 114 
 
 59 
 
 233 
 
 139(1) (2) 
 
 37 
 
 20 
 
 121 
 
 60 
 
 234 
 
 140 
 
 38 
 
 21 
 
 122 
 
 63 
 
 236 (1) 
 
 141(1) 
 
 39 
 
 22 
 
 124 
 
 64 
 
 236(2) 
 
 141(2) 
 
 40 
 
 23 
 
 126 
 
 65 
 
 237 
 
 142 
 
 41 
 
 25 
 
 130 
 
 68(1) 
 
 238 
 
 143 
 
 46 
 
 24 
 
 131 
 
 68(2) 
 
 239 
 
 144 
 
 49 | 
 
 
 133 
 
 69 
 
 243 
 
 112(1) 
 
 50 - 
 
 26 
 
 134 
 
 71 
 
 24S 
 
 112(2) 
 
 51 J 
 
 
 145 
 
 74 
 
 251 
 
 115 
 
 53 
 
 27 
 
 150 
 
 75 
 
 261 
 
 116 
 
 54 
 
 28 
 
 151 
 
 76 
 
 262 
 
 117 
 
 55 
 
 29 
 
 155 
 
 77 
 
 263 
 
 118 
 
 56 
 
 30 
 
 156 
 
 78 
 
 279 
 
 80 
 
 58 
 
 31 
 
 157 
 
 79 
 
 280 
 
 81 
 
 60 
 
 33 
 
 158 
 
 83 
 
 285 
 
 94 
 
 61 
 
 34 
 
 159 
 
 84 
 
 286 
 
 95 
 
 62"| 
 
 35 
 
 160 
 
 85 
 
 287 
 
 9712) 
 
 63 / 
 
 
 165 
 
 86 
 
 290 
 
 95 
 
 641 
 65 1 
 
 36 
 
 169 
 
 87 
 
 383 
 
 145 
 
 
 170 
 
 88 
 
 385 
 
 146 
 
 66 
 
 37 
 
 171 
 
 89 
 
 
 
 67 I 
 
 3S 
 
 174 
 
 90 
 
 
 
 68 i 
 
 
 175 
 
 91 
 
 
 
THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF 
 
 BANKRUPTCY IN CANADA 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Bankruptcy and Insolvency. 
 
 By section 91(21) of The British North America chapter i. 
 Act, 1867 1 , the Parliament of Canada has exclusive 
 legislative authority over "Bankruptcy and Insol- 
 vency* ' 2 . 
 
 The word "bankrupt" was originally applied in 
 England only to fraudulent persons 3 . Thus (1542), 34 
 & 35 By. VIII., c. 4, the first English Bankruptcy Stat- 
 ute, was directed against such "persons as do make 
 bankrupt", that is to say persons "who craftily obtain- 
 ing into their hands great substance of other men's 
 goods, do suddenly flee to parts unknown, or keep 
 their houses, not minding to pay or restore to any their 
 creditors, their debts and duties". The word has 
 undergone various transfers of sense 4 , and now in a 
 
 '30-31 Vie. c. 3 (Imp.). 
 
 2 Murray in the New English Dictionary (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 
 1883), derives the word bankrupt from the Italian banco, rota (Florio) 
 (vhieh is literally " bank broken " or " 'bench broken." The allusion is 
 said to be to the custom of breaking the table of e> defaulting tradesman. 
 Cf. for derivation Coke Institutes IV. 63 ; Blackstone Comm. Vol. II., 
 pp. 285, 472. More in 1533 Apol. XXI. Wks. 881/2 uses the word 
 " bancke roupites." 
 
 3 This distinction is still observable in the use of the corresponding 
 word in French law. See infra, Chap. V., Bankruptcy Administration. 
 
 4 See Murray op. cit. In law the actual state of bankruptcy is often 
 judged by the acts and not by the capacity of the debtor. See (1542) 
 34 and 35 Hy. VIII. c. 4. The enumeration of what acts should cause 
 a person to be deemed a bankrupt was extended by (1570), 13 Eliz. c. 7. 
 Article 23 of the Civil Code of Quebec defines bankruptcy as the condi- 
 tion of a trader who has discontinued his payments. Compare French 
 Code de Commerce Art. 437. Under the Bankruptcy Act a man is a 
 bankrupt only when he has been so adjudged. Sec. 4(5). The adjudica- 
 tion will be made on proof that the debtor has committed an " act of 
 bankruptcy," sec. 3, and that he owes the petitioning creditor or 
 creditors debts aggregating five hundred dollars. Sec. 4. 
 
 B.C. — 1 
 
I BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY. 
 
 Chapter i. popular sense means an insolvent debtor, or one who 
 is unable to meet his liabilities, whether he has been 
 declared a bankrupt or not, irrespective of the nature 
 of , the transactions in which he has indulged' 5 . The 
 derivative "bankruptcy" now means either the state 
 of being bankrupt or the fact of becoming bankrupt 6 . 
 
 "Insolvency" 7 means the state or condition of being 
 unable to pay one's debts or discharge one's liabili- 
 ties 8 . 
 
 Apart from these questions of definition, historical 
 reasons exist for the use of the two words in section 
 91(21) of The British North America Act. There 
 have been both bankruptcy and insolvency statutes in 
 England since (1729), 2 Geo. II., c. 22. The distinction 
 between bankruptcy and insolvency legislation was also 
 recognized in nearly all the colonies which now are 
 provinces of Canada 9 . Bankruptcy legislation as so 
 understood, applied only to traders, and provided for 
 the discharge of the trader from his past debts 10 . 
 
 The insolvency statutes were for the relief of insol- 
 vent non-traders imprisoned 1 , at the instance of their 
 creditors, for non-payment of their debts. These stat- 
 utes- provided for the release from imprisonment of 
 
 '- See 'Murray op. cit. 
 e Murray op. cit. 
 
 7 Prom in-solvere, to loosen or pay. 
 
 8 Murray op. cit. In L'Union St. Jacques de Montreal v. Belisle 
 (1874), L. R. 6 P. C. 31, 36, Lord Selborne, speaking of general laws 
 governing faillite, bankruptcy and 1 insolvency, says : " The words 
 described in their known legal sense provisions made by law for the 
 administration of the estates of persons who may become bankrupt or 
 insolvent, according to rules and definitions prescribed by law, including 
 of course the conditions in which that law is to be brought into opera- 
 tion, the manner in which it is to be brought into operation, and the 
 effect of its operation." The question of definition is fully canvassed in 
 ,the Court of Appeal for Ontario in In re Assignments and Preferences 
 Act (1893), 20 O. A. R. 489. The decision of the Court of Appeal was 
 reversed (1894), A. C. 187. 
 
 9 See Chapter II. 
 
 10 Wihile the earlier bankruptcy statutes such as (1542) 34 and 35 
 Hy. VIII. c. 4, and (1571) 13 Eliz. c. 7, treated the debtor as a criminal 
 whose property might be seized and whose person imprisoned, a change 
 was made by (1705) 4-5 Ann c. 4, and provision was made not only for 
 the discharge of the debtor from prison, but also for his discharge from 
 liability for past debts. 
 
 1 Usually under a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum. 
 
 2 The early statutes (1729) 2 Geo. II. c. 22 ; (1730) 3 Geo. II. c. 
 27; (1735), 8 Geo. II. c. 24; (1741) 14 Geo. II. c. 34; (1748) 21 Geo. 
 II. u. 33; (1756) 29 Geo. II. c. 28; (1758) 32 Geo. II. c. 28, were at 
 
BANKRUPTCY AND IN.SOIjVENCY. ! 
 
 the debtor, but the debtor was not freed from his lia- chapter i. 
 bility a . 
 
 In addition to this historical distinction between 
 Bankruptcy and Insolvency legislation, the article in 
 the Constitution of the United States, which corres- 
 ponds with section 91(21) of the B. N. A. Act, was no 
 doubt before the drafters' of the B. N. A. Act. By 
 Article 1, section 8 of that Constitution, Congress was 
 given power to "establish uniform laws on the subject 
 of bankruptcies throughout the United States". It 
 had been contended that under this Article Congress 
 had no jurisdiction on the subject of insolvency; but 
 although there had been some decisions, it could not 
 be said that the point had been determined 4 . 
 
 All these considerations, no doubt, had their influ- 
 ence in determining the wording of section 91(21). 
 
 first temporary in their nature and partial in operation. The first 
 permanent and comprehensive statute was (1S13) 53 Geo. III. c. 102. 
 See also (1820) 1 Geo. IV. c. 119 ; (1822) 3 Geo. IV. c. 123 ; (1824) 
 5 Geo. IV. o. 61; (1826) 7 Geo. IV. c. 57; (1838) 1 & 2 Vic. c. 110; 
 (1842) 5 & 6 Vic. cc. 116, 122; (1844) 7 & 8 Vic. cc. 70, 96; (1845) 
 8-9 Vic. c. 96; (1847) 10-11 Vic. c. 102; (1868-9) 32-33 Vic. c. 83. 
 The law of bankruptcy under which for example a debtor might obtain 
 a discharge, was first applied to non-traders by the A>ct of 1861, 24 and 
 25 Vic. c. 134 : See Wharton, Law Lexicon, 10th edition, 1902 ; 
 Stevens & Sons s«6 tit. Bankruptcy, Insolvency. The Roman Law 
 never established any distinction between traders and non-traders. In 
 respect of the continuing obligation of the bankrupt it resembled the 
 English law of insolvency — Gaii Institutionum Juris Civilis by Edward 
 Poste, M.A., Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2nd edition, 1875, at p. 342, 
 III. s. 77. In France the bankruptcy provisions of the Code de Com- 
 merce apply only to traders: see Arts. 437, 541, and unless a 
 composition is agreed to there is no discharge or rehabilitation until 
 the bankrupt had paid in full principal, interest and costs : Art. 604. No 
 discharge short of payment in full is provided by the assignment pro- 
 visions of the French Civil Code: Arts. 1265-1270. Nor is 'there in 
 German law any discharge in the English sense. See evidence of Dr. 
 E. J. Schuster at pp. 255-261 and pp. 234-240 of Report of the' com- 
 mittee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into the bankruptcy 
 law and its administration, cd. 4068 (1908) H. M. Stationery office. 
 
 3 The i reason for this early distinction in treatment between traders 
 and non-traders was, no doubt, the fact that the fortunes of traders were 
 subject to the perils of the sea and the fluctuations of the markets to a 
 degree in which others were not. Of. Blackstone "Comm , Vol. II., p. 473. 
 
 'In Bturges v. Growinshield (1819), 4 Wheat 122, an eleborate 
 argument was founded on the distinction between bankruptcy and in- 
 solvency; but Marshall, C.J., did not comtnit himself to the distinctions 
 which had been made, namely that laws which liberate the person are 
 insolvent laws, and those which discharge the contract are bankrupt 
 laws, and that insolvent laws operate at the instance of the debtor ; 
 while bankrupt laws operate at the instance of the creditor. See also 
 Onden v. Saunders (1827), 12 Wheat 212. 
 
LEGISLATION PRIOR TO CONFEDERATION. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 History of Bankruptcy and Insolvency Legislation 
 in Canada Prior to Confederation. 
 
 chapter II. The history of Bankruptcy and Insolvency legisla- 
 tion in Canada falls naturally into two periods, namely: 
 legislation prior to Confederation and legislation after 
 that date 1 . In this chapter it is proposed to outline 
 the history of such legislation prior to Confederation 
 in the Maritime Provinces, Quebec and Ontario, Mani- 
 toba and the North Western Territories, and British 
 Columbia and Vancouver. In the- next chapter the 
 legislation subsequent to Confederation is traced. 
 
 (a) The Maritime Provinces. 
 
 The Maritime Provinces have always been treated 
 as colonies by settlement as distinguished from colonies 
 obtained by conquest or cession 2 . 
 
 The theory of the common law is that in colonies 
 by settlement the settlers carry with them so much of 
 the English common and statute law 3 as is reasonably 
 applicable to the conditions of the colony 4 . No deci- 
 
 1 In this Chapter no more than a survey of bankruptcy and insol- 
 vency legislation is attempted. It is not pretended that the statutes 
 cited are exhaustive of the legislation. 
 
 2 Clement, Canadian Constitution, 3rd ed., 1916, p. 276. See (1759), 
 33 Geo. II. c. 3 (Nova Scotia). 
 
 s A distinction is sometimes made between the introduction of the 
 common law and of statute law ; and the rule governing the introduction 
 of these two portions of English law has been variously expressed in the 
 different colonies which are now .provinces of the Dominion. The dis- 
 tinction is important, as the English law with respect to bankruptcy and 
 insolvency is statutory. In the leading case of Vniacke V. Dickson 
 (1848), James N. S. R. 287, Haliburton, C.J., decided that in Nova 
 Scotia the whole of the common law was introduced, with the exception 
 of such parts as were obviously inconsistent with the circumstances of 
 the country, while only such parts of the statute law were introduced 
 as were obviously applicable and necessary. In New Brunswick the rnle 
 with regard to the admission of statutory law seems not to have been so 
 strict; the tendency being not to reject any statute unless clearly inap- 
 plicable ; Clement : Canadian Constitution, 3rd ed., Carswell Co., Mi 
 1916, p. 282, and cases there cited. 
 
 4 Per Watson, L.J., in Cooper v. Stewart (1889), 58 L.J.P.C. 93; 
 Walker v. Walker (1919), A. C. 947, 951; Blackstone, 1 Comm. 107. 
 
LEGISLATION PRIOR TO CONFEDERATION. £ 
 
 sion has, however, been found on the question whether chapter ii. 
 the bankruptcy and insolvency laws of England were ~~ 
 introduced into the Maritime Provinces on settlement 5 , 
 or on the other question whether as the population, 
 wealth and commerce of the colonies increased such 
 laws were attracted to them 6 . 
 
 No bankruptcy legislation appears to have been 
 passed in Nova Scotia prior to Confederation, though 
 an Act for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors was for 
 many years on the Statute books 7 ; and an Act (1862), 
 25 Vic. c. 2, was passed providing for the Incorporation 
 and Winding-up of Joint Stock Companies. 
 
 Chapter 124 of the Revised Statutes of New Bruns- 
 wick, 1854, is an Act with respect to Insolvent Confined 
 Debtors. This was amended by (1860), 23 Vic. c. 28; 
 and by (1863), 26 Vic. c. 10. In 1864 a Winding-up Act, 
 27 Vic. c. 44, was passed. All these statutes are re- 
 printed in the 1877 Consolidation of the Statutes of 
 New Brunswick. 
 
 In Prince Edward Island various statutes were 
 passed with respect to the relief of Insolvent Debtors : 
 (1786), 26 Geo. III. c. 2 ; (1836), 6 Wm. IV. c. 9 ; (1844), 
 7 Vic. c. 3; (1848), 11 Vic. c. 27. These statutes were 
 all repealed in 1851 by 12 Vic. c. 2, which Act consoli- 
 dated the laws with respect to insolvent debtors. That 
 Act was amended by (1860), 23 Vic. c. 16, s. 75; and 
 by (1862), 25 Vic. c. 6, s. 9, which extended the benefit 
 of the provisions of The Insolvent Act to all persons 
 confined within any jail for any debt, damages or costs. 
 In 1868, that is to say, prior to the entry of Prince 
 Edward Island into Confederation, the Assembly 
 passed 31 Vic. c. 15, entitled an Act for the Relief of 
 Unfortunate Debtors, which provided for the discharge 
 of the debtor from his liabilities. 
 
 5 See, however, as to 13 Eliz. c. 5, respecting Fraudulent Convey- 
 ances, a statute .passed in the same year as the English Bankruptcy Act, 
 and often regarded as a part of the Bankruptcy Code : Tarrett v. Sawyer 
 (1835), 1 Thomp. N. S. R. 46 (2nd ed.) ; Moore v. Moore (1880), 13 N 
 S. R. (1 R. & G.) 525 ; Graham v. Bell (1884) , 17 N. S. R. (5 R & 
 G.) 90. 
 
 See per Watson, LJL, in Cooper v. Stewart, supra. 
 
 'See R. S. N. S. (1851), c. 137; R. S. N. S. (1864), c. 137. 
 
6 LEGISLATION PRIOR TO CONFEDERATION. 
 
 (b) Quebec and Ontario. 
 
 chapter ii. Th e effect of the -cession of Canada, to England was 
 to introduce that portion at least of the public law of 
 England which has to do with the allegiance of the 
 subject 8 , but to leave the private law unchanged, except 
 so far as it was irreconcilable with the fundamental 
 principles of English public policy 9 . As Bankruptcy 
 and Insolvency law appertains to the division of pri- 
 vate and not public law the English law on these ques- 
 tions was not introduced into Canada by the Cession. 
 
 In October of 1763, after the Treaty of Paris, Geo. 
 III. issued a Boyal Proclamation declaring that until 
 assemblies should be constituted, all persons in the 
 ceded territories "may confide in our Eoyal protection 
 for the enjoyment of the benefit of the laws of our realm 
 of England". Whether or not this Proclamation and 
 the subsequent Ordinances' of General Murray had the 
 effect of introducing the whole of English law is an 
 undecided point on which considerable difference of 
 opinion exists 10 . 
 
 The question is, however, of little importance from 
 the point of view of bankruptcy and insolvency legis- 
 lation, for section 8 of (1774), 14 Geo. III. c. 83, an 
 Act for making more effectual provision for the Gov- 
 ernment of the Province of Quebec 11 , provided that in 
 
 8 Public law regulates the rights between State and subject ; private 
 law the rights between subject and subject : Holland, Jurisprud nee, 12th 
 ed., 1916, Stevens & Sons, pp. 128, 366 et seq. As to whether the 
 criminal law was thus introduced; qvicere. 
 
 *Tremblay v. Despatie (1921), 37 T. L. R. 395; Rudinff V. Smith 
 (1821), 2 Hagg (Consist), 371, 382; Campbell v. Ball (1774), 1 
 Oowper 204; of. Durooher v. Degre (1901), R. J. Q. 20 S. C. 456, 475 
 et seq.; Stuart v. Bowman (1853), 3 L. C. R. 309; Wilcoa v. Wilcox 
 (1857) . 8 L. C. E. 34. 
 
 10 In re Marriage Laws (1912), 46 S. C. R. 132, 217, 403; Clement, 
 Canadian Constitution, 3rd ed., 1916, pp. 19 (»1-), 283. See Lemieux, Lei 
 Origines du Droit Franco-Canadien, pp. 363, et seq.; Walton, The Scope 
 and Interpretation of the Civil Code of Lower Canada, Montreal, Wilson 
 & Lafleur, 1907 ; pp. 7-19 ; Garneau Histoire du Canada, Vol. 3, p. 308 ; 
 Lareau Histoire du Droit Oanadien, Vol. 2, p. 45 ; Kingsford, History of 
 Canada, Vol. V., p. 2'35n; Maseres;. F., in Canadian Freeholder ; " Ai View 
 of the Civil Government and Administration of Justice in the Province of 
 Canada while it was subject to the Crown of France," 1 L. C. Jurist, 
 appendix ; Wilcox v. Wilcox (1857), 8 L. C. R. 34. 
 
 11 The statute extended the boundaries of the Province of Quebec to 
 the Mississippi in the Soulh-West, and, in the North-West, to the 
 territory granted to the Merchant Adventurers of England trading to 
 Hudson's Bay. 
 
LEGISLATION PRIOR TO CONFEDERATION. ? 
 
 all matters of controversy relative to property and civil chapter n. 
 rights, resort should be had to the laws of Canada 
 as the rule for the decision of the same. The laws of 
 Canada thus established consisted of : — 
 
 (a) The Coutume de Paris, and the ordinances in 
 force within the jurisdiction of Paris prior to 1663, 
 unless clearly not intended to have effect outside 
 France. 
 
 (b) The Arrets du Conseil du Roi and the ordin- 
 ances published between 1663 and 1763 registered by 
 the Council of Quebec. 
 
 (c) The ordinances of the administrative authori- 
 ties in Canada, especially those of the Intendants. 
 
 (d) The judgments of the courts 12 . 
 
 Eighteen years later, that is to say in 1792, owing 
 to the increase in the English speaking population on 
 the shores of Lake Ontario, the Province of Quebec was 
 divided into the Provinces of Lower and Upper Can- 
 ada (now Quebec and Ontario). 
 
 In Lower Canada the laws of Canada remained 
 without change until 1839, when an ordinance was 
 passed entitled "An Ordinance concerning bankrupts 
 and the administration and distribution of their estates 
 and effects ' " 3 . This Ordinance introduced into Quebec 
 a general Bankruptcy Act based on the English law. 
 It applied only to traders, was administered by com- 
 missioners, and provided for the discharge of the 
 debtor from his liabilities. 
 
 The first Act of the Parliament of Upper Canada 
 (1792), 32 Geo. III. c. 1, declared that thereafter in all 
 matters of controversy relative to property and civil 
 rights, resort should be had to the laws of England as 
 the rule for the decision of the same, but section 6 of 
 the Act provided that nothing in the Act contained 
 should introduce any of the laws of England respecting 
 the maintenance of the poor, or respecting bankrupts. 
 The question, therefore, as to whether English bank- 
 ruptcy laws were at this time introduced into Upper 
 
 12 Walton, the Scope and Interpretation of the Civil Code of Lower 
 Canada, p. 5. 
 
 13 (1839), 2 Vic. c. 36. 
 
8 LEGISLATION PRIOR TO CONFEDERATION. 
 
 chapter ii. Canada is concluded in the negative. The Parliament 
 ~~ 4 of Upper Canada made no provision for bankruptcy 
 
 laws, but several Acts were passed for the relief of 
 insolvent debtors 1 . 
 
 Difficulties developed in the administration of the 
 two provinces. They were accordingly re-united by. a 
 Proclamation issued under (1840), 3-4 Vic. c. 35 (Imp.). 
 During the union, which lasted until Confederation, 
 both bankruptcy and insolvency statutes were passed. 
 
 First as to bankruptcy legislation. In 1843 the Par- 
 liament of Canada passed a general bankruptcy law 
 1 (1843), 7 Vic. c. 10 (Can.) 2 . This Act repealed the 
 Ordinance of 1839, and was applicable throughout the 
 whole Province. It extended only to traders. It made 
 provision for the discharge of the debtor. Section 75 
 of the Act provided for matters not otherwise specific- 
 ally dealt with as follows : — 
 
 "And be it enacted that in all questions not other- 
 wise provided for the laws of Upper Canada and of 
 Lower Canada, respectively, shall be resorted to as the 
 rule of decision in all questions respecting bankrupts, 
 as the said laws now respectively obtain in each section 
 of the Province, and in cases unprovided for in the 
 existing laws above mentioned, then resort shall be had 
 to the laws of England, as such rule of decision in that 
 part of this Province heretofore Upper Canada, and 
 that only" 3 . 
 
 Three years prior to Confederation the Act of 1843 
 and amending Acts expired 4 and were replaced by the 
 so-called Insolvent Act of 1864 D . In so far as it pro- 
 vided for the discharge of the debtor from his liabili- 
 ties, it was bankruptcy rather than insolvency legisla- 
 tion. In Lower Canada it applied to traders only; in 
 
 1 See (1805) , 45 Geo. III. c. 7 ; (1822) 2 Geo. IV. c. 8 ; (1827) 8 
 Geo. IV. c. S; (1830) 11 Geo. IV. c. 4; (1834) 4. Wm. IV. c. 3; 
 (1835), 5 Wm. IV, c. 3; (1840), 3 Vic. c. 6. 
 
 2 This Act was amended by (1846) 9 Vic. c. 30; (1849), 12 Vic. 
 c. 18 ; (1850), 13-14 Vie. c. 20, and was continued in force until after the 
 passing of the Insolvent Act of 1864. 
 
 3 As to whether this introduced substantive law or merely the 
 principles of adjective law see per (Robinson, C J., in Maulson v. Com- 
 mercial Bank (1846) . 2 U. C. Q. B. 338, 346 et seq. 
 
 1 See (1864), 27-28 Vic. c. 24. 
 
 5 27-28 Vic. c. 17. 
 
LEGISLATION PRIOR TO CONFEDERATION. % 
 
 Upper Canada to all persons. It provided both for chapter n. 
 voluntary assignments and compulsory liquidation, and 
 for deeds of composition and discharge 6 . The Act 
 was. amended by 29 Vict. c. 18, and was the last legis- 
 lation on this subject prior to Confederation by the 
 Parliament of the Province of Canada. 
 
 In insolvency, matters the Parliament of the Prov- 
 ince of Canada passed separate Acts with respect to 
 Upper and Lower Canada. Chapter 96 of (1858), 22 
 Vic. (1st session), was applicable only to Upper Can- 
 ada. It provided for the release from imprisonment of 
 a debtor, giving the Court power to make it a condition 
 of the debtor's discharge that he should make an 
 assignment of his property 7 . It contained provisions 
 against transactions intended to defeat or delay credi- 
 tors or to give one or more of them a preference over 
 any other s . The provisions of this Act were embodied 
 in chapter 26 of (1859), Consolidated Statutes of 
 Upper Canada, entitled ' - An Act respecting the Relief 
 of Insolvent Debtors". 
 
 Of considerably more importance was the insol- 
 vency legislation of the Parliament of the Province of 
 Canada applicable to Lower Canada ; for to it may be 
 traced some of the provisions with respect to "ces- 
 sion de biens", or "judicial abandonment" or "assign- 
 ment" of property under which insolvent estates were 
 administered in Quebec during the period when no 
 Dominion bankruptcy statute was in force. In 1849 
 an Insolvency Statute was passed entitled "An Act 
 to Abolish Imprisonment for Debt, and for the Pun- 
 ishment of Fraudulent Debtors in Lower Canada and 
 for Other Purposes" 1 . The Act applied only to Lower 
 Canada. It provided for the abandonment of his pro- 
 perty by an insolvent, and its administration by a 
 curator 2 . All Acts and provisions of law repugnant 
 to or inconsistent with the Act or which made any 
 provision in am* matter provided for by the Act other 
 
 6 Sections 2, 3, 9. 
 
 1 Section 12. 
 
 8 Sections 18 19. 
 
 1 (1849), 12 Vic. c. 42. 
 
 2 Sections 4-8. 
 
10 LEGISLATION PRIOR TO CONFEDERATION. 
 
 chapter ii. than such as was made by the Act, were repealed 8 . 
 The provisions of this Act with respect to the aban- 
 donment of his property by an insolvent, and its admin- 
 istration by a curator, were later embodied in chapter 
 87 of (1861), The Consolidated Statutes of Lower 
 Canada*. 
 
 When the monumental work of revision and codi- 
 fication of the laws of Quebec was undertaken in 1857 5 , 
 the Commissioners might have embodied these pro- 
 visions in the Civil Code. They had before them the 
 French Civil Code, Articles 1265-1270 of which had to 
 do with assignment of property. These articles are to 
 be found in Book III., Title Third, chapter V. "of the 
 Extinction of Obligations" 6 , and are the counterpart of 
 English insolvency legislation 7 . The Commissioners, 
 however, in drawing up the Civil Code, prepared no 
 articles on cession de biens s , this subject being re- 
 
 3 Section 17. 
 
 4 "An Act respecting arrest and imprisonment for debt, and the 
 Relief of Insolvent Debtors." 
 
 5 Under (1857), 20 Vic. c. 43, Consolidated Statutes of Lower 
 Canada (1861), c. 2, the Commissioners were required to prepare two 
 codes, the Civil Code, and the Code of Civil Procedure. The Codes were 
 to be framed on the same general plan and were to contain the like 
 amount of detail as the French Code Civil, Code de Commerce, and Code 
 de Procedure Civile. Sections 4, 5, 7. 
 
 c " A cession de bieris under the French Civil Code is- an assignment 
 or abandonment of all his property in favor of his creditors made by a 
 debtor who finds himself unable to pay his debts" (Art. 1265). 
 Such an assignment may be voluntary or judicial. A voluntary assignment 
 is one which creditors accept voluntarily, and the effects of which depend 
 on the contract between the parties. (Art. 1267). A judicial 'assignment 
 is an advantage which the law grants to a debtor who has been unfor- 
 tunate and has acted in good faith. He is allowed to make in court to 
 his creditors an abandonment of all his property for the purpose of 
 securing the liberty of his person. (Art. 1268. The law of 22 July, 
 1867, abolished execution against the person in commercial and civil 
 matters and against foreigners). A judicial assignment confers no 
 ownership on the creditors. It only gives them the right to have the 
 property sold for their benefit and to collect the income in the interim. 
 While it releases the execution against the person' of the debtor, it only 
 releases the debtor from his liabilities to the extent of the value of the 
 property abandoned. In case such property is insufficient to discharge 
 his liabilities and the debtor acquires more property he is obliged to 
 abandon it until full payment has been made. (Arts. 1269, 1270). 
 
 7 French bankruptcy law is to be found in the Code de Commerce. 
 
 8 They say at p. 26 of their first report : " No articles 1 have been 
 prepared on the subject of the cession of goods. The treatment of that 
 subject in the French code as a payment and means of extinguishing 
 obligations' is considered by some of the commentators to 'be an error. 
 Pothier has not included it in his work on obligations and there is 
 
LEGISLATION PRIOR TO CONFEDERATION. 11 
 
 served for treatment in the Code of Civil Procedure, chapter 11. 
 The Code of Civil Procedure was issued in 1866. 
 Articles 763-780, .which deal with V abandon ou cession 
 de biens, are to be found in Book I., Title III., Chapter 
 II. "of compulsory execution of judgments", being 
 section 6 of that chapter. Section 7 of the same chap- 
 ter is entitled "of coercive imprisonment". Certain 
 of the articles were taken from chapter 87 of the Con- 
 solidated Statutes of 1861 9 , others from the French 
 Civil Code. 
 
 The articles of section 6 have been considerably 
 altered since they were first issued 10 . "When first pub- 
 lished they provided that a debtor arrested under a 
 writ of capias ad satisfaciendum might make a judicial 
 abandonment of his property for the benefit of his 
 creditors 1 . They also provided for .the appointment 
 of a curator, and for the discharge from prison of the 
 debtor 2 . The abandonment of his property did not 
 deprive the debtor of the enjoyment thereof prior to 
 its sale under execution, nor did it discharge him from 
 his obligations beyond 1 the extent to which his credi- 
 tors were paid 3 . Article 780 read : ' ' Other special pro- 
 visions concerning insolvent traders are contained in 
 the statute intituled: The Insolvent Act of 1864". 
 
 (c) Rupert's Land and the North Western Territory. 
 
 The territory which at one time was known as 
 Eupert's Land and the North Western Territory, out 
 of which have been created the Provinces of Manitoba, 
 Alberta and Saskatchewan, was comprised in the land 
 granted in 1670 to the Hudson's Bay Company. That 
 company's settlers carried with them such of the laws 
 
 nothing in our law which would justify its introduction in- this title. 
 The completion of an insolvency law based upon the Gessio bonorum of 
 the civil law and so framed as to meet the evident wants of the country, 
 ought to be a matter of Consideration, but it does not properly belong 
 to the section of the work now submitted." 
 
 9 See .p. XXII., 10th Report of the Commissioners, dated Ottawa, 
 June 21, 1866. 
 
 10 See now Code of Civil Procedure, 1897, Arts. 853-892, issued 
 under (1897). 60 Vic. c. 48. 
 
 'Art. 763. 
 
 " Arts. 768, 777. 
 
 8 Arts. 778, 779. 
 
12 LEGISLATION PRIOR TO CONFEDERATION. 
 
 Chapter ii. of England as were applicable to the circumstances 
 of their settlement 4 , but the company's charter con- 
 tained the power to make laws and administer justice. 
 In the District of Assiniboia which extended from the 
 vicinity of Fort Garry to the Eocky Mountains, the 
 company set up a governor and council, who in 1851 
 passed an ordinance providing that in place of the laws 
 of England as they were in 1670 these laws as they 
 had become at the date of the accession of Queen 
 Victoria, should regulate the proceedings of the Court. 
 In 1864 by another ordinance there was again substi- 
 tuted "all such laws of England of subsequent date 
 as may be applicable. " It is possible that the effect of 
 this ordinance taken together with subsequent Imper- 
 ial, Dominion and Provincial statutes, was, to make 
 all existing English law, except so far as inapplicable, 
 extend to the Provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Sas- 
 katchewan 5 . 
 
 However that may be, in 1874, that is three years 
 after the entry .of Manitoba into Confederation, the 
 Legislature of that province, by 38 Vic. c. 12, s. 1, pro- 
 vided for the introduction in all matters of controversy 
 relative to property and civil rights of the English 
 law as it existed on the 15th July, 1870, so far as the 
 same could be made applicable to matters relating to 
 property and civil rights in the province. This being 
 a provincial statute passed in pursuance of the powers 
 given by section 92 of the B. N. A. Act, cojild not intro- 
 duce any of the English Bankruptcy or Insolvency 
 statutes into Manitoba, though it has been held that 
 The English Debtors Act of 1869, was thereby intro- 
 duced . 
 
 * Walker v. Walker (1919), A. 0. 947, 951. 
 
 6 See Walker v. Walker (1919), A. C. 947, 953; 28 M. L. B. 495. 
 Sinclair v. Mulligan (1888), 5 M. L. R. 17, had been to the effect that 
 English law as it existed in 1670 had remained in force in Manitoba. 
 This case is commented on in Walker v.. Walker, 28 M. L. R. 495. 
 Compare Eraser v. Kirkpatrick (1907), 6 Terr. L. R. 403; Canadian 
 Bank of Commerce v. Adamson (1883), 1 M. L. R. 3; Re Tait (1890), 
 9 M. L. R. 617; Re Colder (1848), (1891), 2 W. L. T. 1 ; and contrast 
 an article in 4 C. L. T. p. 1 ; and Connolly v. Woolrioh, 11 L. 0. J. 197. 
 
 "Monkman v. Sinnot (1884), 3 M. L. R. 170; Re an Attorney 
 (1886), 3 M. L. R. 316; Re Bremner (1889), 6 M. L. R. 73. 
 
LEGISLATION PRIOR TO CONFEDERATION. 13 
 
 In 1888 the Dominion passed an Act 7 for the removal chapter n. 
 of doubts declaring that ' ' the laws of England relating 
 to matters within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of 
 Canada, as the*- same existed on the 15th day of July, 
 1870, were from the said day and are in force in the 
 Province of Manitoba, in so far as the same are applic- 
 able to the said province, and in so far as the same 
 have not been or are not hereafter repealed, altered, 
 varied, modified or affected by any Act of the Parlia- 
 ment of the United Kingdom applicable to the said 
 Province, or of the Parliament of Canada". This Act 
 introduced into Manitoba The English Matrimonial 
 Causes Act (1857), 20 & 21 Vic. c. 85 8 . 
 
 In 1886 the Dominion Parliament by section 3 of 
 49 Vic. c. 25, introduced into the North-West Terri- 
 tories "the laws of England relating to civil and 
 criminal matters, as the same existed on the 15th July, 
 
 1870 in so far- as the same are applicable in 
 
 the Territories, and in so far as the same have not 
 been, or may not hereafter be, repealed, altered, varied, 
 modified or affected by any Act of the Parliament 
 of the United Kingdom applicable to the Territories, 
 or of the Parliament of Canada, or by any ordinance 
 of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council". It has been 
 held under this section that while statutes of a purely 
 local nature were not introduced* 1 The English Matri- 
 monial Causes Act (1857), 20 & 21 Vic. c. 85 (Imp.) 
 being substantive law was introduced into Alberta 10 , 
 and that a portion of The English Debtors Act of 1869 1 
 is in force in the Territories 2 . Applicable it has been 
 said means "suitable" or "properly adapted to the 
 conditions of the country" 3 . 
 
 '51 Vic. c. 33. 
 
 8 Walker v. Walker (1919), A. C. 947; 28 M. L. R. 495. 
 
 ° Le Syndicat Lyonnais da Klondyke v. McGrade (1906). 36 S. C. 
 R. 25. 
 
 "Board v. Board (1919), A. C. 956. 
 
 '32&33 Vic. c. 62 (Imp.). 
 
 2 Fraser v. Kirkpatrick (1907), 6 Terr. L. R. 403. Sifton, C.J., 
 dissented on the ground that The Debtors' Act and The Bankruptcy Act 
 refer to each other and are intended to 'be worked correlatively, and 
 that as The Bankruptcy Act was not brought into force under the general 
 provision as to the laws of England in 1870 The Debtors' Act was not 
 in force in the Territories. 
 
 "Brand v. Griffin (1908), 1 A. L. R. 510. 
 
14 LEGISLATION PRIOR TO CONFEDERATION. 
 
 Chapter ii. (d) Vancouver Island and British Columbia. 
 
 The colony of Vancouver Island, and the mainland 
 colony of British Columbia, were colonies by settle- 
 ment. 
 
 By proclamation of the 19th of November, 1858, Sir 
 James Douglas, Governor of the mainland colony of 
 British Columbia, ordained that the ' ' civil and criminal 
 laws of England as the same existed at the date of the 
 said proclamation, and so far as they are not from 
 local circumstances inapplicable to the colony of Brit- 
 ish Columbia, are and will remain in force within the 
 said colony". It appears to have been assumed in 
 British Columbia that this proclamation had intro- 
 duced the English Bankruptcy and Insolvency laws; 
 for in 1865 by an ordinance to amend the law relating 
 to Bankruptcy and Insolvency, it was declared that 
 the laws of Bankruptcy and Insolvency then existing in 
 the colony should continue in force subject to the pro- 
 visions of the ordinance. In 1871 an Act was passed 
 to exempt in certain cases cattle from the operation of 
 any Bankruptcy or Insolvency laws. 
 
 In 1862 the Assembly of Vancouver Island for the 
 purpose of removing alleged doubts as to the applica- 
 tion of the English Bankruptcy and Insolvent laws, 
 passed an Act declaring that the laws of Bankruptcy 
 and Insolvency in England should, subject to the pro- 
 visions of, the Act, be deemed to be the laws of Bank- 
 ruptcy and Insolvency within the colony. 
 
 In 1866 by 29 & 30 Vic. c. 67 (Imp.) the colony of 
 Vancouver Island was united with the colony of British 
 Columbia. Section 5 of that Act provided that, not- 
 withstanding the union, the laws in force in the sepa- 
 rate colonies should, until otherwise provided by lawful 
 authority, remain in force as if the Act had not been 
 passed. But by The English Law Ordinance of 1867, 
 it was enacted that the "civil and criminal laws of 
 England as the same existed on the 19th day of Novem- 
 ber, 1858, and so far as the same are not from local 
 circumstances inapplicable, are and shall be in force 
 in all parts of the Colony of British Columbia". By 
 Order-in-Council of May 16th, 1871, the colony of Brit- 
 
LEGISLATION PRIOR TO CONFEDERATION'. 15 
 
 ish Columbia was admitted into the Dominion of Can- chapter n. 
 ada as the Province of British Columbia. The deci- 
 sion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 
 Watts v. Watts*, is to the effect that by virtue of the 
 various ordinances and statutes above referred to The 
 English Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857, 
 20 & 21 Vic. c. 85, is in force in British Columbia, not 
 being a local Act incapable of application to British 
 Columbia. 
 
 1 (1908), A. C. 573. 
 
16 LEGISLATION SUBSEQUENT TO CONFEDERATION. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 History of Bankruptcy and Insolvency Legislation 
 in Canada Subsequent to Confederation. 
 
 chapter in. Confederation of the Provinces, of Canada, Nova 
 Scotia and New Brunswick was accomplished hy the 
 British North America Act (1867), 30-31 Vic. c. 3. As 
 has been already pointed out 1 the Dominion Parlia- 
 ment was by section 91(21) of The British North 
 America Act, given exclusive legislative jurisdiction 
 over the subject matter of Bankruptcy and Insolvency. 
 The first Act of the Dominion Parliament on this 
 subject was (1869), 32-33 Vic. c. 16, an Act respecting 
 Insolvency. That Act recited that it was expedient 
 that the Acts respecting Bankruptcy and- Insolvency 
 in the several Provinces of- Ontario, Quebec, New 
 Brunswick and Nova Scotia be amended and consoli- 
 dated, and the law on those subjects assimilated in 
 the several Provinces of the Dominion. After pro- 
 viding a fairly complete Bankruptcy Code it repealed 
 The Canadian Insolvent Act of 1864, and its amending 
 Act of 29 Vic. c. 18, and ' ' all other Acts and parts of 
 Acts now in force in any of the said Provinces which 
 are inconsistent with the provisions hereof" 2 . The 
 scheme of the Act of 1869 was similar to that of 1864. 
 It provided not only for voluntary assignments and 
 compulsory liquidation, but also for the execution of 
 deeds of composition and discharge. It also provided 
 that a debtor might be released from imprisonment on 
 proof that he had made an assignment of all his pro- 
 perty and had not been guilty of any fraudulent dis- 
 posal, concealment or retention of his estate 3 . The Act 
 applied to traders only*. 
 
 In 1870 by Imperial Order-in-Council, dated 23rd 
 
 ^Chapter I. 
 
 2 Section 154.- 
 
 3 Section 145. 
 
 4 Section 1. 
 
LEGISLATION SUBSEQUENT TO CONFEDERATION. 17 
 
 June, 1870, Bupert's Land and the North Western Chapter in. 
 Territory were admitted to the Union as from the 15th ~ 
 July, 1870, and thereupon by the effect of (1870), 33 
 Vic. c. 3 (Dom.) the Province of Manitoba was estab- 
 lished and became part of the Union. By (1871), 34 
 Vic. c. 13 (Dom.), it was declared that the Act of 1869 
 respecting Insolvency should not apply to insolvents 
 resident in Manitoba, except in the case of Composi- 
 tion and Discharge mentioned in sections 94 to 108 of 
 that Act. 
 
 In 1871 by Imperial Order-in-Council, dated 16th 
 May, 1871, the Province of British Columbia was ad- 
 mitted into the Union as from the 20th July, 1871, and 
 finally by Imperial Order-in-Council, dated 26th June, 
 1873, the Province of Prince Edward Island was ad- 
 mitted into the Union, as from July 1st, 1873. 
 
 The Act respecting Insolvency (1869), 32-33 Vic. 
 c. 16, was amended by (1870), 33 Vic. c. 38, and by 
 (1871), 34' Vic. c. 25. It was continued in force until 
 1874 by (1873), 36 Vic. c. 42. By (1874), 37 Vic. c. 46, 
 and (1875), 38 Vic. c. 2, it was again continued in force 
 until 1876; and the Act of (1868), 31 Vic. e. 15, passed 
 by the Assembly of Prince Edward Island, together 
 with the Acts amending and continuing the same, were 
 revived and continued in that Province until the same 
 date. 
 
 In 1875 a new Act, 38 Vic. c. 16, The Insolvent Act of 
 1875, "was passed. It applied not only to traders and 
 trading co-partnerships, but also to trading compan- 
 ies whether incorporated or not, except incorporated 
 banks, insurance, railway and telegraph companies. It 
 applied to all the provinces 5 . In the main it followed 
 its predecessors, the Acts of 1864 and 1869, but the 
 voluntary assignments sections of the Act of 1869 
 were dropped. Under the Act of 1875, if a debtor 
 ceased to meet his liabilities generally as they became 
 due a creditor might make a demand on him requiring 
 him to make an assignment 6 . If the debtor made an 
 
 s Section 150. 
 6 Section 4. 
 
18 LEGISLATION SUBSEQUENT TO CONFEDERATION. 
 
 Chapter in. assignment, his estate was administered thereunder 7 . 
 Creditors, however, had the alternative remedy of 
 applying to the court for a writ of attachment under 
 which the property of the debtor was seized 8 . The 
 Act also provided for the execution of deeds of Com- 
 position and Discharge?. Under these provisions the 
 debtor might obtain his discharge on obtaining the 
 consent to a deed of discharge or of composition and 
 discharge of a majority in number of creditors who had 
 proved claims of one hundred dollars and upwards, and 
 who represented three-fourths in value of all claims of 
 one hundred dollars and upwards 10 . If after a year 
 from the date of an assignment or of the issuing of a 
 writ of attachment the debtor had not obtained the 
 consent of the creditors to his discharge or to the exe- 
 cution of a deed of composition and discharge, he might 
 apply to the court for his discharge 1 . 
 
 This Act of 1875 repealed 2 The Canadian Insolvent 
 Act of 1864, and Amending Act, 29 Vic. c. 18 (Can.); 
 The Insolvent Act of 1869 (Dom.), and (1870), 33 Vic. 
 c. 38; (1871), 34 Vic. c. 25; (1874), 37 Vic. c. 46; the 
 Prince Edward Statute (1868), -31 Vic. c. 15, and the 
 several amending and continuing Acts ; the Vancouver 
 Island Statute of 1862, and the British Cohimhia 
 Statute of 1865, together with all Acts of the legisla- 
 tures of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 
 amending the same. It also provided 3 that all other 
 Acts and parts of Acts then in force in any of the pro- 
 vinces inconsistent with the provisions of the Act 
 should be repealed. 
 
 , The Insolvent Act of 1875 was amended by (1876), 
 39 Vic. c. 30, and (1877), 40 Vic. c. 41. But the system 
 was not found to have worked satisfactorily, there was 
 dissatisfaction with the method of administration, and 
 the constant irritation caused by ill-considered legisla- 
 tive tinkering with so important, a piece of legislation 
 
 7 Section 14. 
 
 8 Sections 9, 12. 
 
 Sections 49-61. 
 10 Section 52. 
 
 1 Section 64. 
 
 2 Section 149. 
 8 Section 149. 
 
LEG1HLATI0X SUBSEQUENT TO CONFEDERATION . 19 
 
 brought to a head the movement for the repeal of the chapter in. 
 Act. Chapter I. of (1880) , 43 Vic, repealed The Insol- 
 vent Act of 1875> and the Acts amending it, and pro- 
 vided that no Act repealed by the .said Acts or either 
 of them should be revived. By (1881), 44 Vic. c. 27, 
 section 58 of The Insolvent Act of 1875, which had been 
 repealed by (1877), 40 Vic. c. 41, s. 14, and which pro- 
 vided that the judge might refuse to discharge the 
 insolvent where the dividend was less than thirty-three 
 per cent., was revived. 
 
 Except for winding-up legislation, this was the last 
 Dominion Act on the subject of Bankruptcy and Insol- 
 vency until the present Bankruptcy Act was passed. 
 
20 BANKRUPTCY UNDER FEDERAL SYSTEM.. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Bankruptcy and Insolvency Legislation under the 
 Canadian Federal System. 
 
 Chapter iv. On the abandonment by the Dominion Parliament 
 of its legislative function on the subject of Bankruptcy 
 and Insolvency 1 , the Provincial legislatures were com- 
 pelled in the interest of commercial discipline to exer- 
 cise their much less extensive powers, and to endea- 
 vour to bring about results somewhat similar to those 
 which might have been accomplished under a compre- 
 hensive insolvency law. 
 
 Quebec was fortunate in possessing articles 763- 
 780 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provided a 
 system of administration for the estates of insolvent 
 persons. Amendments were from time to time made to 
 these articles 2 . As revised and amended they now 
 appear as Articles 853-892' of the Code of Civil Pro- 
 cedure of 1897. 
 
 The Common Law Provinces started without this 
 advantage; but in time a fairly complete code was 
 built up. It embraced not only provisions against 
 fraudulent preferences, that is to say, preference of 
 one or more creditors at the expense of others; and 
 against fraudulent conveyances, or alienations of land 
 to the prejudice of creditors 3 ; but also various enact- 
 
 1 In Dupont v. La Cie de Moulin (1888) , 11 L- N. 225, Mr. Justice 
 Wurtele said: " It is in the interest of the trade and commerce. of the 
 whole Dominion that there should be one uniform law for all the 
 provinces, regulating proceedings in the case of insolvent debtors, 
 unrestricted in its operation by provincial boundaries ; that it should be 
 possible to obtain a national execution, and not merely a limited 
 provincial one against the estate of an insolvent debtor who might hold 
 property in several provinces, or transfer it from his own province into 
 another." 
 
 2 See e.g. 1885, c. 22; 1889, c. 51. As to constitutionality see 
 Parent v. Trudel (1887), 13 Q. L. R. 136. 
 
 8 The constitutionality of such provincial enactments has bee" 
 upheld in Manitoba, Bleasdell v. Townsend (1883), 3 C. L. T. 509; 
 Stephens v. McArthur (1890), 6 M. L. R. 496. In the Supreme Court 
 of Canada the judges with the exception of Patterson, J., avoided 
 expressing any opinion on this matter : 19 S. C. R. 446. See general 
 
BANKRUPTCY TJSDER FEDERAL SYSTEM. 21 
 
 ments designed to ensure publicity in connection with Chapter iv. 
 transactions which might otherwise be manipulated to 
 the prejudice of the mass of the creditors, or to the 
 secret advantage of the debtor*. It sought to prevent 
 priority amongst execution creditors 5 ; and it pro- 
 vided for the administration of the estates of persons 
 who made assignments fdr the benefit of their credi- 
 tors. The legislation in question avoided making any 
 claim to being insolvency legislation, but its chief, if 
 not its only, function was to provide a comprehensive 
 system for the conservation of the property and for 
 the administration of the estate of insolvent persons . 
 
 The principal questions, namely, priority among 
 execution creditors, fraudulent preferences, fraudu- 
 lent conveyances and administration, were first dealt 
 with in Ontario. In 1880 The Creditors Relief Act 
 was passed 7 . This was followed in 1885 by an Act 
 respecting Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors 5 . 
 
 This Act provided for a system of voluntary assign- 
 ments, and re-enacted 3 in somewhat altered form the 
 provisions of an Act of the late Province of Canada 
 with respect to transactions made with intent to 
 defeat, delay or prejudice- creditors, or to give one or- 
 more of them a preference 10 . It gave the assignee the 
 exclusive right of suing for the rescission of agree- 
 ments made in fraud of creditors 1 . Section. 9 of the 
 
 cases cited in Re Assignments and Preferences Act (1893), 20 O. A. R. 
 489, and Tooke Bros., Lid. v. Brock & Patterson, Ltd. (1907) 3 E. L. 
 R. 270, 272'. 
 
 * See the various Acts respecting Bills of Sale and Chattel Mortgage, 
 Conditional Sale of Chattels, and Bulk Sales. See as to the constitu- 
 tionality of a Provincial Bills of Sale Act, In re and em parte Deveber 
 (1882) . 21 N. B. R. 397 ; In re Deveber ex parte Bank of New Bruns- 
 wick (18S2), 21 N. B. R. 401. 
 
 5 See The Creditors' Relief Acts which followed (1880) , 43 Vict. c. 
 10 (Ont.). 
 
 • The necessity for example of a provision against fraudulent pre- 
 ferences exists only when the estate of the debtor is insufficient to satisfy 
 the claims ni all his creditors. 
 
 7 (1880), 43 Vic. c. 10 (Ont.). 
 
 "(1885), 48 Vic. c. 26. The example of Ontario in passing an 
 Assignments Act was followed in the other provinces. See (1885), Man. 
 c. 45 : (1888) , N. W. T. No. 49 ; (1890) , B. C. c. 12 ; (1895) , N. B. c. 6 ; 
 (1898), N. S. c. 11; (i898), P. E. I. c. 4; (1906), Sask. c. 25- (1907), 
 Alta. c. 6 
 
 9 Section 2. 
 
 "Consbl. Stat. (1859), 22 Vic. c. 26, ss. 17, 18. 
 
 1 Section 7. 
 
22 BANKRUPTCY UNDER FEDERAL SYSTEM. 
 
 Chapter iv. Act provided that an assignment for the benefit of 
 creditors under the Act should take precedence of all 
 judgments and of all executions not completely exe- 
 cuted by payment. The Act contained no provision 
 for the discharge of the debtor from his liabilities. 
 
 The provisions of section 9 of the Act 2 were 
 attacked in the Voluntary . Assignments Case 3 as 
 beyond the competence of the Provincial legislature. 
 
 The judgment of the Judicial Committee upheld 
 the validity of this section 4 . The judgment reads in 
 part: 
 
 "Their lordships proceed now to consider the 
 nature of the enactment said to be ultra vires. It 
 postpones judgments and executions not completely 
 executed by payment to an assignment for the benefit 
 of creditors under the Act. Now there can be no 
 doubt that the effect to be given- to judgments and 
 executions, and the manner and extent to which they 
 may be made available for the recovery of debts are 
 prima facie within the legislative powers of the pro- 
 vincial parliament. . . 
 
 "But it is argued that, inasmuch as this assign- 
 •ment contemplates the insolvency of the debtor and 
 would only be made if he were insolvent, such a pro- 
 vision purports to deal with insolvency and therefore 
 is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the 
 Dominion parliament. Now it is to be observed that 
 an assignment for the general benefit of creditors has 
 long been known to the jurisprudence of this country 
 and also of Canada, and has its force and effect at 
 common law quite independently of any system of 
 bankruptcy or insolvency or any legislation relating 
 thereto. . . 
 
 ' "It is not necessary in their lordships' opinion, 
 nor would it be expedient to attempt to define, what 
 is covered by the words 'bankruptcy' and 'insolvency' 
 in section 91 of the B.N.A. Act. But it would seem 
 
 2 As re-enacted in (1887), E. S. O. c. 124. 
 
 8 Atty.-Gen. (Ont.) v. Atty.-Gen. (Can.) (1894), A. C. 189; 63 
 L. J. P. C. 59. 
 
 * It was on this, judgment that the right to pass the voluntary 
 assignment codes was 'based. See Tooke Bros., Ltd. v. Brook £ Patter- 
 son, Ltd. (1907), 3 E. L. R. 270, 272. 
 
BANKRUPTCY UNDER FEDERAL SYSTEM. 23 
 
 that it is a feature common to all the systems of bank- chapter iv. 
 ruptcy and insolvency to which reference has been - 
 made, that the enactments are designed to secure that 
 in the case of an insolvent person his assets shall be 
 ratably distributed amongst his creditors whether he 
 is willing that they shall be so distributed or not. 
 Although piovision may be made for a voluntary 
 assignment as an alternative, it is only as an alterna- 
 tive. In reply to a question put by their lordships, the 
 learned counsel for the respondent were unable to 
 point to any scheme of bankruptcy or insolvency legis- 
 lation which did not involve some power of compulsion 
 by process of law to secure to the creditors the distri- 
 bution amongst them of the insolvent's estate. 
 
 "In their lordships' opinion, these considerations 
 must be borne in mind when interpreting the words 
 'bankruptcy' and 'insolvency' in The British North 
 America Act. It appears to their lordships that such 
 provisions as are found in the enactment in question, 
 relating as they do to assignments purely voluntary, do 
 not infringe on the exclusive legislative power conferred 
 upon the Dominion parliament. They would observe 
 that a system of bankruptcy legislation may frequently 
 require various ancillary provisions for the purpose of 
 preventing the scheme of the Act from being defeated. 
 It may be necessary for this purpose to deal with the 
 effect of executions and other matters which would 
 otherwise be within the legislative competence of the 
 provincial legislature. Their lordships do not doubt 
 that it would be open to the Dominion parliament to 
 deal with such matters as part of a bankruptcy law, 
 and the provincial legislature would doubtless be then 
 precluded from interfering with this legislation, inas- 
 much as such interference would affect the bankrutcy 
 law of the Dominion parliament. But it does not fol- 
 low that such subjects as might properly be treated as 
 ancillary to such a law, and therefore within the pow- 
 ers of the Dominion parliament, are excluded from the 
 legislative authority of the provincial legislature when 
 there is no bankruptcy or insolvency legislation of the 
 Dominion parliament in existence. ' ' 
 
24 BANKRUPTCY UNDER FEDERAL SYSTEM. 
 
 Chapter iv. The ancillary doctrine enunciated, in the ■■ Volun- 
 ~ tary Assignments Case is of considerable importance. 
 V: enables the Dominion to pass complete and full- 
 rounded legislation. Dominion provisions which are 
 truly ancillary 5 or, as the latest phrase is, necessarily 
 incidental 6 to a general bankruptcy or insolvency, law, 
 may effect, a virtual repeal of provincial legislation. 
 There can be no direct repeal; but if the two are in 
 conflict the Dominion enactment must prevail 7 . 
 
 The extent of the Dominion power may be further 
 determined by reference to the earlier case of Cushing ■ 
 v. Dupuy s . The question there was whether the 
 Dominion might limit appeals in insolvency. The 
 argument was that such legislation would be an inter- 
 ference not only with property and civil rights, but 
 also with procedure in civil matters, which classes of 
 subjects are by section 92(13) (14) of the B. N. A. Act, 
 exclusively assigned to the legislature of the Province. 
 The Judicial Committee said 9 : 
 
 "It would be impossible to advance a step in the 
 construction of a scheme for the administration of 
 insolvent estates without interfering with and modify- 
 ing the ordinary rights of property, and other civil 
 rights, nor without providing some mode of special 
 procedure for the vesting, realization and distribution 
 of the estate, and the settlement of the liabilities of the 
 insolvent. Procedure must necessarily form an essen- 
 tial part of any law dealing with insolvency. It is 
 therefore to be presumed, indeed it is a necessary 
 
 5 Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Atty.-Gen. of Canada (1907), A. C. 65, 
 68. - 
 
 "Montreal v. Montreal Street Railway (1912), A. C. 333, 344. In 
 adopting a more stringent test than that suggested by Anglin, J.— 
 " reasonably necessary " — ■ the Judicial Committee appear to have 
 produced a new doctrine, that of " co-operation " between the Dominion 
 and the Provinces (1912), A. C. 333, 345-6; of. per Anglin, J., in 
 (1910), 43 S. C. R. 197, 241, 246. See generaUy on ancillary legislation: 
 Clement, 3rd ed., 1916, pp. 497-505; Lefroy, Canadian Federal System, 
 Chapter 17. • 
 
 ''Attorney-General (Ont.) v. Attorney-General (Dom.) (1886), 
 A. C. 348. 366, 369 ; La Compaanie Hydraulic de St. Francois v. Con- 
 tinental Heat and Light Co. (1909), A. C. 194, 198;' In re Kilhm 
 (1874), 14 C. L. J. N. S. 242; Tennant v. Vnion Bank of Camii 
 (1894), A. C. 31; Crown Gram Go. v. Day (1908), A. C. 504,, 507; 
 Kinney v. Dudman (1876), 11 N. S. R. (2 Russ. & Cbes.) 19. 
 
 8 (1880), 5 A. C. 409. 
 
 "At p. 415. 
 
BANKRUPTCY UNDER FEDERAL SYSTEM. 25 
 
 implication, that the Imperial Statute, in assigning to chapter iv. 
 the Dominion parliament the subjects of bankruptcy 
 and insolvency, intended to confer on it legislative 
 power to interfere with property, civil rights and pro- 
 cedure within the provinces, so far as a general law 1 
 relating to those subjects might affect them. Their 
 lordships therefore think that the Parliament of 
 Canada would not infringe the exclusive powers given 
 to the Provincial legislature by enacting that the judg- 
 ment of the Court of Queen 's Bench in matters of insol- 
 vency should be final, and not subject to appeal as of 
 right to Her Majesty in Council as allowed by Art. 1178 
 of the Code of Civil Procedure" 2 . 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act, 1919, is applicable not only to 
 individuals and partnerships but also to certain classes 
 of companies. In this respect it follows the Insolvent 
 Act of (1875) and the present United States statute 3 . 
 The Winding-Up Act, which did not provide for a dis- 
 charge from contracts, provided for the distribution of 
 the assets of insolvent companies, and so was valid 
 insolvency legislation*. The Dominion Parliament may 
 not only pass a general law for the winding-up of com- 
 panies, but it has also power to pass a special act to 
 incorporate the assignees of an insolvent bank and 
 
 1 See L'Union St. Jacques de Montreal v. Belisle (1874), I/. R. 6 
 P. C. 31, at 36, as interpreted by Qufct v. The Queen (1891) , 19 S. C. 
 R. 510; sub nom. R. v. County of Wellington, 17 0. A. R. 421; 17 O. 
 R. 615. 
 
 2 See also Tennant v. Union Bank of Canada (1894), A. C. 31; 
 Shields v. Peak (1882), 8 S. C. R. 579; 6 O. A. R. 639; 31 U. C. C. P. 
 112. See previously on the question of interference with section 92(14) 
 of the B. N. A. Act, CromMe v. Jackson (1874), 34 U. C. Q. B. 575, 
 580. 
 
 • (1875) 38 Vic. c. 16, s. 1 (Dom.) ; (1898), U. 8. Bankruptcy Act, 
 s. 4. This system has the advantage of avoiding two bankruptcy codes. 
 The procedure under the Bankruptcy Act is less complicated than that 
 under the Winding Up Act, and the system of administration better, 
 though 'amendments are required to make the Bankruptcy Act more 
 nearly fit all cases which may arise in the winding up of companies. 
 
 * Per Patterson, J.. In Shoolbred v. Clarke in re Union Fire Insur- 
 ance Co. (1890), 17 S. C. R. 265, 274; Dupont v. La Cie de Moulin 
 (1888) , 11 L. N. 225 ; In re the. Eldorado Union Store Co. (1886) , 18 N. 
 S. R. (6 R. & G.) 514; In Harrison v. Nepisiquit Lumber Co., Ltd. 
 (1911), 11 E. L. R. 314, it was held that while insolvency is one 
 ground upon which a company may be wound up under the Winding Up 
 Act this does not make the Winding Up Act an " Act relating to Insol- 
 vency '' within the meaning of the New Brunswick Bills of Sale Act. 
 The application of the discharge sections of the Bankruptcy Act to the' 
 case of companies appears to have been due to an oversight. 
 
-j ( ; BANKRUPTCY UNDER FEDERAL SYSTEM. 
 
 Chapter iv. give them authority to carry on the business of the 
 ~ bank as far as it is necessary for the winding-up of 
 the same 5 . On the other hand, provided the Act is not 
 winding-up legislation, a province may, as a matter 
 merely of a local or private nature within section 92 
 (16) of the B. N. A. Act, pass an Act for the relief of 
 a particular association which is in a state of extreme 
 financial embarrassment 6 . It has also been held that 
 in the absence of Dominion legislation, a Provincial 
 legislature may as a matter of civil procedure, pass 
 an Act with respect to the sequestration of the pro- 
 perty of a provincially incorporated insolvent railway- 
 company which has been declared to be a work for the 
 general advantage of Canada 7 . 
 
 While a Dominion Winding-Up Act cannot be 
 Invoked for the purpose of the original winding-up of 
 the entire business of a foreign company which is 
 doing business in Canada, it is applicable to insolvent 
 foreign companies doing business in Canada, and may, 
 as ancillary to winding-up proceedings in the foreign 
 court, be invoked to wind up the business being con- 
 ducted in Canada 8 . Such legislation is intra vires the 
 Dominion parliament 9 . 
 
 While the provisions of the Dominion Act with 
 respect to the winding-up of insolvent provincially 
 incorporated companies are intra vires 10 it has been 
 suggested that the Dominion parliament would he 
 incompetent to declare that the Dominion Winding-Up 
 Act should apply to provincial companies whether 
 
 ° Quirt v. The Queen (1891) , 19 S. C. R. 510 ; sub nom. R. v. County 
 of_ Wellington, 17 O. A. R. 421 ; 17 O. R. 615. 
 
 ° L'Union St. Jacques de Montreal v. Belisle (1874), L. R. 6 P. C. 
 31; as explained in Quirt v. The Queen (18,91). 19' S. C. R 510; s#5 
 nom. R. v. County of Wellington, 17 O. A. R. 421 ; IT O. R 615. 
 
 "Per Baby, Bosse, Blanchet, (Hall & Wurtele, diss.) in Nantel v. 
 La Compagnie de Ghemin de Per de la Baie des Chaleurs (1896), Q. R- 
 5 Q. B. 64 ; Q. R. 6 S. C. 47, affirming Pagnuelo, J. 
 
 8 Allen v. Hanson^ In> re The Scottish Canadian Asbestos Co., JM. 
 (1890), 18 S. C R. 667; explaining Merchant's Bank of Balifca v. 
 Gillespie (1885), 10 S. C. R. 312; and see Re Briton Medical <mi 
 General Life Association, Ltd. (1886), 12 O. R. 441, 447. 
 
 9 Allen v. Hanson In re The Scottish Canadian Asbestos Co., M-< 
 supra. 
 
 10 Shoolbred v. Clarke In re Union Fire Insurance Co. (1890), 17 
 S. C. R. 265 ; Re The Eldorado Union Store Co. (1886) , 18 N. S. &■ 
 (6 R: & G.) 514. 
 
BAXKRUPTCY UNDER FEDERAL SYSTEM. 27 
 
 insolvent or not 1 . The question is hardly likely to chapter iv. 
 arise in exactly that way under The Bankruptcy Act.~ 
 The assignment, composition and extension provisions 
 of The Bankruptcy Act speak of insolvent debtors 
 only. Insolvent is denned in section 2(t). A receiving 
 order moreover may only be made on proof of an .act 
 of bankruptcy, and of the existence of a debt of five 
 hundred dollars or upward 2 . 
 
 In the interpretation of a federal Act, it is at times 
 important to determine the legal principles which 
 should apply 3 . The applicable principle in the pro- 
 vinces in which the principles of English bankruptcy 
 law are not in force 4 has yet to be determined. 
 
 "In some respects The Bankruptcy Act is super- 
 imposed on provincial law. Thus, where no provision 
 is made in The Bankruptcy Act for such matters, refer- 
 ence must be made to provincial laws to determine such 
 questions as what constitutes the property of the 
 debtor, who are creditors, and who are secured credi- 
 tors 6 . 
 
 The questions of the extra-territorial operation of 
 a Dominion statute and of the effect under a Dominion 
 
 1 Per Maybe. J., In re Cramp Steel Co., Lta\ (1908), 16 O. L. R. 
 230. See as to the different decisions in the different provinces on the 
 applicability of the Dominion Winding Up Act to provincially incor- 
 porated companies which are not shown to be insolvent : Re Empire 
 Timber, Lumber & Tie Co.. Ltd. (1920), 48 O. L. R. 193; 19 O. W. N. 
 29; In, re Colonial Investment Co. of "Winnipeg (1913), 23 M. L. R. 
 871 ; 15 D. L. R. 634 ; In re The Lake Winnipeg Transportation Lumber 
 and Trading Go. (1891), 7 M. L. R. 255; In re The Eldorado Union 
 Store Co. (1886), 18 N. S. R. (6 R. & G.) 514. See for the possible 
 meaning of the phrase " Bankruptcy and Insolvency " : L'Union St. 
 Jacques V. Belisle (1874). L. R. 6, P. C. 31, 36 quoted in Ohap. I. 
 
 2 Sections 9, 13 and 4: In re Cramp Steel Co., Ltd. (1908), 16 O. 
 L. R. 230, it was held that the then Dominion Winding Up- Act, R. S. C. 
 (1906), c. 144, did not apply to a provincially incorporated) company 
 which had no creditors, and which was not insolvent : Contrast Re 
 BamUton Ideal Mfg. Co., Ltd. (1915) , 34 O. L. R. 66. 
 
 *Gf. Atty.-Gen. (Ont.) v. Atty.-Gen. (Dom.) (1910), A. C. 637, 
 645. As to whether there is a common law of the Dominion, quwre. 
 If there is no common law of the Dominion The Bankruptcy Act is Jiot 
 a codifying statute, as is the English Act. As to codifying statutes, see 
 Bank of England v. Vagliano Bros. (1891), A. C. 107; Robinson v, 
 C. P. R. Co. (1892), A. C. 481, 487; Despotic v. Tremblay (1921), 37 
 T. L. R. 395, 396. 
 
 4 See Chapters II. and III. 
 
 5 See notes to sections 2(dd), and 52. See also Chapter VI. and 
 Cushing v Dupuy (1880), 5 A. C. 409; and compare on The Bills of 
 Exchange Act, Cook v. Dodds (1903), 6 O. ~L. R. 608. 
 
28 BANKRUPTCY UNDER FEDERAL SYSTEM. 
 
 chapter iv. statute of transactions which take place outside Can- 
 ~ ada, belong to the domain of Constitutional Law. They 
 are discussed in the leading text-books'*. 
 
 The scheme of The Bankruptcy Act with respect to 
 the creation of Courts of Bankruptcy and the adminis- 
 tration of the Act is discussed in the notes to sections 
 63 et seq. Section 87 provides that all persons who 
 are barristers, solicitors or advocates of any court in 
 any province may practice as barristers, solicitors and 
 advocates in the courts exercising bankruptcy juris- 
 diction under the Act in any or in all the provinces. 
 
 Section 122 of the English Bankruptcy Act 7 reads: 
 
 122. The High Court, the county courts, the courts 
 having jurisdiction in bankruptcy in Scotland and Ire- 
 land, and every British Court elsewhere having juris- 
 diction in bankruptcy or insolvency, and the officers of 
 those courts respectively, shall severally act in aid of 
 and be auxiliary to each other in all matters of bank- 
 ruptcy, and an order of the court seeking aid, with a " 
 request to another of the said courts, shall be deemed 
 sufficient to enable the latter court to exercise, in 
 regard to the matters directed by the order, such juris- 
 diction as either the court which made the request, or 
 the court to which the request is made, could exercise 
 in regard to similar matters within their respective 
 jurisdictions. 
 
 Certain other questions respecting Bankruptcy and 
 Insolvency legislation under the Canadian Federal 
 system are discussed in Clement, Canadian Constitu- 
 tion, 3rd ed., 1916, Carswell Co., Ltd., pp. 804-814; 
 Lefroy, Canada's Federal System, 1913, Carswell Co., 
 Ltd., pp. 279-293. 
 
 8 Clement, Canadian Constitution, 3rd edition, 1916, pp. 65-115; 
 Lefroy, Canada's Federal System, 1913, pp. 101-106, 185 ; see also notes 
 to ss. 2(o)and 2(dd). 
 
 ' (1914), 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 59 (Imp.). 
 
BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION. 29 
 
 CHAPTEE V. 
 
 Bankruptcy Administration. 
 
 A bankruptcy or insolvency law is part of the chapter v. 
 settled jurisprudence of every great commercial coun- 
 try. • This was true in the past as it is true to-day in 
 Eome as well as in England, in the United States of 
 America, in Prance and in Germany. England has 
 not been without a bankruptcy statute since 1542. 
 
 Bankruptcy legislation in England 1 under the 
 early statutes was an attempt to repress and punish 
 what were conceived to be deliberately fraudulent per- 
 sons, that is to say, persons who "craftily obtaining 
 into their hands great substance of other men's goods 
 do suddenly flee to parts unknown, or keep their 
 houses, not minding to pay or restore to any their 
 creditors their debts and duties" 2 . Bankrupts were 
 
 'Bankruptcy legislation began in England in 1542 with the statute 
 34 & 35 Hy. VIII. c. 4 ; but this was soon followed in 1571 by the more 
 important Act of 13 Eliz. e. 7. In the same. year the statute of 13 Eliz. 
 c. 5, an Act against Fraudulent Deeds, Gifts and Alienations, was 
 passed. The principles of bankruptcy law and administration as estab- 
 lished : by this statute continued in England with few changes until the 
 19th 'century. The statute provides a conspicuous example of adminis- 
 tration by Commissioners. It was applicable only to traders ; and was 
 administrered with some severity: Changes were made by 1 Jas, I. c. 15 ; 
 21 Jas. 1 c. 10; 4 Anne u. 17 ; 5 Anne c. 22; 10 Anne c. 15; and 5 
 Geo. II. c. 30. In 1825 all the existing bankruptcy legislation was 
 repealed by 6 Ge<_. IV. c.,16 and the law consolidated. Further statutes, 
 namely, 1 & 2 William IV. c. 56, and 5 & 6 Vic. c. 122, followed until in 
 1849, the first of the modern, great Bankruptcy Codes, 12 & 13 Vic. c. 106, 
 was passed. Changes made by the Acts of 1861 and 1868 (24 & 25 Vic! 
 e. 134, and 31 & 32 Vie. c. 104) were followed in 1869' by the second of 
 the great Codes. 32 & 33 Vic. c. 71, along with which was passed the 
 Debtor's Act (32 & 33 Vic. c. 62). These two. Acts established in the 
 main the modern principles of bankruptcy law, but the administration 
 under the Bankruptcy Act was found to be expensive and cumbersome. 
 Accordingly, in 1883, the third and last of the Bankruptcy Codes was 
 passed, namely, 46 & 47 Vic. c. 52. The law of bankruptcy as 1 it exists 
 in England to-day is substantially the same as that contained in the 
 Act of 1883; although some rather important changes were made in 
 1890 (53 & 54 Vic. c. 71) and 1913 (3 & 4 Geo. V. c. 34) . In 1914 the 
 existing law was consolidated by 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 59. 
 
 2 (1542) 34 & 35 Hy. VIII. c. 4. 
 
30 BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 Chapter v. accordingly treated as criminals 3 . In time however it 
 came to be considered that while a statute was neces- 
 sary which should punish actual fraud and provide 
 for the distribution of the assets of insolvents, provi- 
 sion should also be made for the relief of honest but 
 unfortunate traders from that ruin to which they as 
 traders were more subject than the non-commercial 
 classes. Commencing therefore with (1705), 4-5 Ann, 
 c. 4, the Bankruptcy Acts made provision for the dis- 
 charge of the honest but unfortunate insolvent trader 
 from his liabilities. It was only to traders that this 
 privilege was accorded. This distinction between the 
 treatment of traders and non-traders, lasted in Eng- 
 land until 1861. Due partly to the growing difficulty 
 of defining who were and who were not traders, the 
 distinction was abolished by The Bankruptcy Act of 
 1861, and the privilege of discharge was made avail- 
 able to all persons 4 . 
 
 A complete bankruptcy code usually provides for: 
 
 1. The initiation of insolvency proceedings. 
 
 2'. The preservation of the property of the debtor. 
 
 3. The machinery for the administration of the 
 estate. 
 
 4. The administration of the estate. 
 
 5. The punishment of the debtor for acts prejudicial 
 to his creditors or contrary to honest business prac- 
 tice. 
 
 6. The discharge of the debtor from his liabilities. 
 
 3 See per Fitzgerald, L.J., in Colonial Bank V. Whinney (1886), 
 11 A. C. 426). 442. _ In the Spectator, No. 428, Steel speaks of " that 
 most dreadful of all human conditions, the case of Bankruptcy.' 
 In Italy fallitus ergo fraudator was at one time accepted, as 
 a legal axiom. In France there is a clearly defined distinction 
 between Faillite and Banqueroute. Under French law there are three 
 kinds of insolvency: faillite or simple insolvency, where no element of 
 blame attaches ; banqueroute simple, or insolvency which contains 
 elements subjecting the debtor to disciplinary action by the court; and 
 banqueroute frauduleuse, or insolvency containing criminal features. 
 See Code de Commerce, Book III., Titles I. and II. By the custom of 
 Laval, some centuries ago, a person who had become insolvent was 
 required to wear a green cap as a sign of his folly, Traite des Faillites, 
 par Augustin, Charles Renouard. Premiere Partie Chap. II. 
 
 1 In continental systems the law of bankruptcy applies only '° 
 traders. Unless a composition is agreed to, there is no discharge in the 
 English sense short of payment in full. 
 
BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION. 31 
 
 These six matters are all covered by The Bank- chapter v. 
 ruptcy Act of 1919 5 . It is proposed to discuss the ' 
 provisions of the Act under the same headings. 
 
 1. The initiation of proceedings. 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act provides three methods for 
 the initiation of proceedings with respect to the affairs 
 of an insolvent debtor. 
 
 (a) The debtor may make a proposal to his credi- 
 tors for a composition of his debts, or an extension of 
 time for their payment, or a scheme of arrangement 
 of his affairs 6 . If this proposal is accepted by a suf- 
 ficient number of the debtor's creditors the Court may 
 confirm it, whereupon it will bind dissentient creditors, 
 and, if carried out, is equivalent to a discharge. The 
 Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921, has extended 
 the composition, extension or scheme provisions of 
 The Bankruptcy Act, and contains some novel features, 
 the working out of which will be watched with interest. 
 
 (b) The debtor may make what is called an author- 
 ized assignment for the benefit of his creditors 7 . This 
 is intended to be the equivalent of the petition in 
 bankruptcy which, under the English Act, the debtor 
 may present. By what appears to be an oversight, 
 the property which is available for distribution to the 
 creditors under an authorized assignment is not so 
 extensive as that under a receiving order 8 . 
 
 (c) "Where a debtor has committed an act of 
 bankruptcy a creditor, to whom is owing a debt of the 
 required amount, may petition the Court, asking that 
 a receiving order be made for the protection of the 
 estate, and that the debtor be adjudged bankrupt 9 . 
 The effect of the receiving order is to vest in a trustee, 
 
 5 The Bankruptey Act of 1919 is based mainly on the English Act 
 of 1883. Not all of the English amendments of 1890 & 1913 (which 
 appeared in the consolidating Act of 1914) have been included. The 
 Bankruptcy Act of 1919 also contains provisions taken from The Insol- 
 vent Act of 1875. from the Winding Up Act of 1906, and from various 
 Provincial Assignments and Preferences Acts. 
 
 5 Section 13. 
 
 ' Sections 9, 10. 
 
 8 See infra. 
 
 ' Section 4. 
 
32 BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 Chapter v. as of the date of the presentation of the petition, all 
 the property of the debtor wheresoever situate 10 . 
 
 2. The preservation of the property of the debtor. 
 
 Every comprehensive bankruptcy code Jmust of 
 necessity provide for the preservation of such property 
 as the debtor may have at the initiation of the proceed- 
 ings, but it must also cover certain transactions entered 
 into before that date. 
 
 It is a common practice for debtors who are on the 
 eve of insolvency, or actually insolvent, either to con- 
 vey their property to other persons for their own ulti- 
 mate benefit, or to prefer one or more creditors at the 
 expense of the others. English law knows these two 
 transactions under the names of fraudulent convey- 
 ances, and fraudulent preferences. The Bankruptcy 
 Act makes each of them an act of bankruptcy. It 
 explicitly forbids fraudulent preferences 1 , but it leaves 
 to provincial law the enactment of provisions against 
 fraudulent conveyances 2 . It is also against the con- 
 sidered policy of the bankruptcy law that a man who 
 is insolvent or on the eve of insolvency should be per- 
 mitted to make certain payments which will, directly 
 or indirectly enure to his benefit, such as payments 
 made in pursuance of the debtor's marriage contract 3 . 
 
 In addition to the cases just' mentioned-, there is an 
 infinite variety of transactions injurious to the estate 
 of the debtor into which he may enter after he. is insol-, 
 vent. These either are not covered by the provisions 
 just referred to or they cannot be avoided without the 
 expense of court proceedings. The doctrine of the 
 relation back of the title of -the trustee is intended to 
 cover them. The principle on which the English Aot 
 proceeds with respect to the relation back of the trus- 
 tee 's title is simple and practical. Once a debtor has 
 committed an "act of bankruptcy", his estate stands 
 subject to be administered in bankruptcy, and, pro : 
 vided proceedings are taken within three months after 
 
 10 Sections 4 and 25. 
 
 1 Section 31. 
 
 2 See notes to section 3(6). 
 8 Section 29. 
 
BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION. 33 
 
 the act of bankruptcy has been committed, the title of chapter v. 
 the trustee will relate back to the moment of time when 
 the act of bankruptcy was committed. The result is 
 that a debtor who has committed an act of bankruptcy 
 is potentially incompetent to transfer, mortgage or 
 otherwise deal with his property, except to innocent 
 persons. This provision is most efficacious in prevent- 
 ing the wasting of the estate by the debtor after he has 
 committed an act of bankruptcy. Similar provisions 
 exist in the bankruptcy legislation of France, Belgium, 
 Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. In France 4 and Bel- 
 gium 5 the tribunal either of its own motion or on appli- 
 cation of any party interested, fixes the date at which 
 the cessation of payments shall be deemed to have taken 
 place 6 . Under The Bankruptcy Act of 1919, the rela- 
 tion back of the title of the trustee is not so extensive 
 as under the English Act. Under our Act relation 
 back is only to the date of the presentation of the 
 petition 7 . 
 
 In most bankruptcy systems provision is made for 
 the distribution of property which the debtor may 
 acquire after the date of the assignment or receiving 
 order. This was the practice in Quebec under Art. 
 873, C.P.C. It is the practice in England, whether the 
 proceedings are voluntary or involuntary. The Bank- 
 ruptcy Act, 1919, however, makes a strange distinction 
 between property passing under an authorized assign- 
 ment and that passing under a receiving order. In 
 the case of a bankrupt the property vesting in the 
 trustee -includes all property which may be acquired 
 by or devolve on the bankrupt before his discharge; 
 but under an authorized assignment the trustee obtains 
 only such property as may belong to or be vested in 
 the debtor at the date of the execution of the author- 
 ized assignment 8 . 
 
 4 Code de Commerce Art. 441. See for the effect of a cessation of 
 payments on the debtor's transactions, Arts. 446-450. 
 
 B Loi du 18 April, 1851, Art. 442. 
 
 "Bankruptcy, a Study in Comparative Legislation, by S. Whitney 
 Dunscomb, Jr., Columbia College Studies in History, Economics and 
 Public Law; 1893, Vol. II. No. 2, at page 40. 
 
 7 See notes to section 4(10). 
 
 8 Section 25. See for a discussion as to the advisability of making 
 liable the after-acquired property of the debtor: Speech on Bankruptcy 
 
 B.O.— 3 
 
34 BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 Chapter v. 3. The machinery for the administration of the 
 estate. 
 
 There are two main systems of administration in 
 bankruptcy or insolvency. The first is that which may 
 be called state administration. It is the system of 
 most European continental countries; and has some 
 advantages 9 . 
 
 The alternative system is that of administration by 
 trustees who may be subject to control by the Court, 
 but not by any state department. This system may 
 take various forms. One of the chief weaknesses of 
 the Insolvent Acts of 1869 and 1875 was in the admin- 
 istration. While these Acts provided for administra- 
 tion by official assignees, appointments in many cases 
 were made of persons quite unfitted to perform the 
 duties of their office, and as the Court's control is regu- 
 lative rather than directory, the administration of the 
 Act fell into disrepute. The Bankruptcy Act of 1919 
 provides for administration by authorized trustees, 
 who are appointed by the Governor in Council on 
 application made to the Secretary of State of Canada 10 . 
 This provision will no doubt ensure the appointment 
 only of persons reasonably competent to administer 
 the Act; but, while a certain majority of creditors, or 
 the. Court, may remove a trustee from the administra- 
 tion of an estate 1 , there is no provision for any general 
 
 and other Commercial subjects by the Rt. Hon. Geo. J". Goschen, M.P., 
 Feb. 7, 1868. London; Effingham Wilson, Royal Exchange. Under 
 German law the property of the debtor distributed among his creditors 
 does not include after-acquired property.; and creditors who have proved 
 in the bankruptcy cannot touch the after-acquired property of the bank- 
 rupt while the bankruptcy is going on. When the administrator has 
 distributed all the property which the debtor had at the time of the 
 petition the bankruptcy is terminated ; but the debtor is only released 
 from his debts to the extent to which those debts have been paid; and 
 the creditors can then proceed exactly as if there had been no bank- 
 ruptcy. See per Dr. E. J. Schuster, Q. 5571, p. 236 of Report of the 
 Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into the Bank- 
 ruptcy Law and its Administration. Cd. 4068. 1908 H. M. Stationery 
 office. 
 
 "See the evidence of M. Gabreil Astoul, counsel to the French 
 Embassy, in Report of the Committee appointed by the" Board of Trade 
 to inquire into the Bankruptcy Law and its Administration. Cd. 4068. 
 1908 H. M. Stationery office, and see Code de Commerce Arts. 451, 462, 
 491, 587-590, 592. 
 
 10 Section 14. 
 
 1 Section 15. 
 
BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION. 35 
 
 control of authorized trustees by the Governor in Chapter v. 
 Council 2 . 
 
 trThe administration of the estate. 
 
 The general scheme of the Act is that the trustee 
 is to administer the estate in accordance with the 
 wishes of the creditors, under the direction of the 
 inspectors, subject in all things to the provisions of 
 the Bankruptcy Act. For this purpose the trustee is 
 given wide statutory powers 3 . The inspectors are 
 appointed at the first or a subsequent meeting of credi-. 
 tors 4 . The permission in writing of the inspectors 
 must be obtained by the trustee before he can do cer- 
 tain things in the administration of the estate 5 . The 
 inspectors are, as it were, the executive body for the 
 creditors. At the first meeting the creditors may give 
 directions to the trustee with reference to the disposal 
 of the estate", but once the inspectors have been 
 appointed, the creditors have little direct say in the 
 administration of the e'state 7 , though the trustee is, 
 required to call a meoting of creditors whenever 
 requested in writing by twenty-five per cent, in num- 
 ber of the known creditors holding twenty-five per cent, 
 in value of the known claims 8 . The personnel of the 
 inspectors may be changed by the creditors 9 . 
 
 As soon as may be after the making of the receiving 
 order or authorized assignment, the trustee should 
 take possession of the deeds, books and documents of 
 
 2 The system under the English Act is a compromise between official 
 and unofficial administration. The Aict provides for Official Receivers, 
 who act under the Board of Trade. Pending the appointment of a 
 trustee the Official Receiver is interim receiver of the debtor's estate ; he 
 summons and presides at the first meeting of creditors; reports to the 
 creditors any proposal which the debtor may have made with respect to 
 the mode of liquidating his affairs ; investigates the conduct of the 
 debtor; and takes part in the public examination of the debtor: (1914), - 
 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 59, ss. 70-75. After thus as it were, getting the 
 bankruptcy proceedings under way the Official Receiver hands over to a 
 trustee appointed by the creditors (S. C. ss. 18, 19). 
 
 8 Sections 17-21. The general position of the trustee is fully dis- 
 cussed in Chap. VI. 
 4 Section 43. 
 
 3 Sections 20-21. 
 'Section 42(1) 
 
 'See sections 35, 53(1). 
 •Section 42(3). 
 "Section 43(3). 
 
36 . BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 chapter v. the debtor, and all other parts of his property capable 
 " of manual delivery 10 . 
 
 • The trustee is required within five days from the 
 date of the receiving order or assignment to mail circu- 
 lars calling the first meeting of creditors for a date 
 not later than fifteen days after the mailing of the 
 notice 1 . Forms for proof of debt and proxies 2 should 
 be sent out with the circulars. 
 
 The first business at the meeting is the election of 
 a chairman. Only creditors who have lodged proofs 
 of their debts with the trustee before the time appointed 
 for the meeting may vote at the meeting 3 . The chair- 
 man has power to admit or reject proofs for the pur- 
 pose of voting 4 . A creditor may vote in person or by 
 proxy". Secured creditors may only vote in respect 
 of the unsecured portion of their claims 6 . Eestricted 
 creditors may neither prove nor vote 7 . 
 
 The debtor must be present at the first meeting of 
 creditors and must submit to examination and give 
 such information as the meeting may require 8 . The 
 debtor may be further examined on a resolution passed 
 by creditors or inspectors 9 . At the first meeting the 
 creditors will elect inspectors and give directions to 
 the trustee with reference to the disposal of the 
 estate 10 . 
 
 Under the assignment and receiving order sections 
 of the Act, the business of an insolvent debtor maybe 
 carried on, but only so far as may be necessary for the 
 beneficial winding-up of the same 1 . Under the com- 
 position, extension and scheme provisions, however, 
 the business of a debtor may, it seems, be carried on 
 not merely with a view to its winding-up, but also for 
 the purpose of rehabilitating it 2 . 
 
 10 Section 17(1). 
 •Section 42(2). 
 2 Section 42(13). 
 'Section 42(9). 
 'Section 42(12). 
 5 Sect' on 42(13). 
 "Sections 42(10) (16), 46. 
 ' Notes to section 48. 
 
 8 Section 54. 
 
 9 Section 56. 
 "Section 42(1). 
 
 1 Section 20(1) (6). 
 
BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION. 37 
 
 Dividends are distributed (only among creditors Chapter v. 
 who have proved their debts 3 . Bestricted creditors 
 are not entitled to claim any dividend until all claims of 
 other creditors for money or money's worth have been 
 satisfied 4 . The Act does not disturb the rights of 
 secured creditors under their securities, provided the 
 giving of the security did not constitute a fraudulent 
 preference; but unless a secured creditor either rea- 
 lizes, surrenders or values his security he is excluded 
 from all share in any dividend 5 . 
 
 Before payment of dividends the trustee is entitled 
 to retain such sums as are necessary for the costs of 
 administration or otherwise , and the payment in the 
 following order of priority, of certain moneys due to 
 the landlord for rent 7 , the fees and expenses of the 
 trustee, the costs of the execution creditor, and claims 
 for wages for services rendered during three months 
 before the date of the receiving order or assignment 8 . 
 
 The first dividend must be paid within six months 
 from the date of the receiving order or authorized 
 assignment or earlier if required by the inspectors 9 . 
 Further dividends are to be paid whenever the trustee 
 has sufficient moneys in hand to pay the creditors ten 
 per cent 10 . The Act provides for the payment of a 
 final dividend and for the payment over to the Eeceiver- 
 Greneral of all declared but unpaid dividends 1 . It also 
 provides for the discharge of the trustee 2 , but makes no 
 provision for an Official Eeceiver to represent the 
 estate and reduce to possession property which may 
 fall in after the discharge of the trustee. 
 
 5. The punishment of the debtor for acts preju- 
 dicial to his creditors or contrary to honest business 
 practice. 
 
 Part VIII. of the Act deals with Bankruptcy 
 
 3 Section 37. 
 'Section 48. 
 "Section 46, of. 42(10). 
 ■ Section 37. 
 'Section 52. 
 8 Section 51. 
 'Section 37(1). 
 10 Section 37(1). 
 
 1 Section 37. 
 
 2 Section 41 
 
38 BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 Chapter v. offences. There are also provisions in the Criminal 
 "" Code with respect to similar offences. The. provisions 
 of the Code are referred to in the notes to the sections 
 in Part VIII. 
 
 6. The discharge of the debtor from his liabilities. 
 
 Next perhaps to integrity and impartiality in the 
 administration of the estate by trustees, the success 
 or otherwise of any bankruptcy system depends on 
 the administration of the discharge provisions of the 
 Act. Laxity in the administration of this part of the 
 Act has been one of the principal causes of dissatisfac- 
 tion with United States Bankruptcy statutes, which 
 have too often been administered as if they were a 
 clearing house for the liquidation of debts, a sort of 
 constant Jubilee. The Act itself empowers the Court 
 either to grant or refuse an absolute order of dis- 
 charge, or to suspend the operation of the order for a 
 specified time, or to grant a conditional order of dis- 
 charge. The benefit of the discharge provisions is 
 now opened not merely to unfortunate traders, but to 
 all insolvent debtors ; but it may be that the Court will 
 administer these provisions in the light of their histori- 
 cal development in English and Canadian law, that is 
 to say, as the conferring of a boon on persons who, 
 without fault of their own, have been overtaken by a 
 great calamity 3 . 
 
 A discharge frees the debtor with certain defined 
 exceptions 4 from all debts which were provable in his 
 bankruptcy or under authorized assignment proceed- 
 ings 5 . The idea is that if a debtor is entitled to his 
 discharge he is to be a free man in the widest possible 
 sense, freed that is to say not only from past and 
 present, but also from future and contingent claims. 
 This is not a modern conception, but the machinery 
 necessary to the effective carrying out of the concep- 
 tion is modern". 
 
 8 Under the French lavr even a failUte, as distinguished from a 
 lanqueroutier, realizes that to come under the insolvency law is not a 
 pleasant matter. See Code de Commerce Art. 455//. 
 
 * Section 61. 
 "Section 61. 
 
 • See notes to sections 44, 49, 50. 
 
POSITION OF TRUSTEE. 3Q 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Position of the Trustee under The Bankruptcy 
 
 Act. 
 
 Under The Bankruptcy Act the trustee occupies a chapter vi. 
 three-fold position. He represents the debtor in the 
 sense that he steps into his shoes, and takes the 
 debtor's property subject to all the equities under 
 which the debtor held it. But the trustee also occu- 
 pies a higher position than the debtor by virtue of 
 certain provisions of The Bankruptcy Act. Thirdly, 
 the trustee may avoid certain transactions of the 
 debtor which are not mentioned in The Bankruptcy Act. 
 Such transactions are those which are against the 
 policy of the bankruptcy law, or contrary to statutes 
 passed in the general interest of creditors 1 . 
 
 Generally speaking the trustee, whether he is act- 
 ing under a receiving order, an authorized assignment 
 or a composition, extension or scheme, steps into the 
 shoes of the debtor. He has all his rights but occu- 
 pies no better position than the debtor 2 , and a liqui- 
 dator is in the same position 3 . A trustee therefore 
 acquires the interest of the debtor in his property sub- 
 ject to the rights of third parties, such as lienholders 
 whose liens have already attached 4 , or an executor 
 
 1 See Chapter IV. on the question of what principle is to be invoked 
 in the interpretation of a Federal enactment in the different provinces. 
 
 2 See per Herschell, L.C., in McEntire v. Grossley Bros. (1895), 
 A. C. 457, 461; Fisken v. Brooke (1879), 4 O. A. R. 8, 22; Re. Wilson 
 Estate (1915), 33 O. L R. 501, and notes to sections 25 and 32. 
 
 *Waterhouse v. Jameson (1870), L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. 29, 37, 38; 
 In re Duckworth (1867), L. R. 2 Ch. 578, 580; In re Elsworth and 
 Tidy's Contract (1889), 42 Ch. D. 23. The liquidator wields the powers 
 of the company and of the creditors : Kent v. La CommunautS des 
 Soeurs (1903), A. C. 220. 226; 72 L. J. P. C. 61. 
 
 *See Re Llangennach Coal Co. (1887), 56 L. T. 475; Re Clinton 
 Thresher Co. (1910), 1 O. W. N. 445; 15 O. W. R. 319; Stewart v. 
 Ledouw (1872), 2 Rev. Crit. 482; Re Fashion Shop Co. (1915), 33 O. 
 L. R. 253 ; Fuches v. Hamilton Trioime Co. (1884) , 10 P.R. 409. The 
 trustee, it has been said, takes the debtor's property subject to a ven- 
 dor's lien for unpaid purchase money which re-attaches when the 
 property comes back to the debtor: Van Wagner v. Findlay (1867), 14 
 Gr. 53, and see notes to. sections 2(gg)„ 6(1), 9, 10, 46. 
 
40 POSITION OF TRUSTEE. 
 
 chapter vi. who has a right of retainer 5 , or a person who has a 
 ' charge which might be avoided by other parties 6 , or a 
 person who has an equitable security or an equitable 
 right to a security 7 . A trustee therefore cannot 
 obtain priority over an equitable mortgagee, of a chose 
 in action by giving notice before the mortgagee 8 ; or by 
 use of the Registry Acts acquire priority over the 
 prior vendee of the insolvent 9 , for the trustee is not a 
 transferee for value 10 , and a deed of assignment for 
 the benefit of. creditors does not convey any greater 
 estate than the debtor himself has 1 . The trustee takes 
 goods in the possession of the debtor subject to resilia- 
 
 " In re May, Crawford v. May (1890) , 45 Oh. D. 499 ; In re Simpson, 
 Simpson v. Simpson (1895), 1 Ir. R. 530; I,i re Ambler, Woodhead v. 
 Ambler (1905) , 1 Ch. 697. 
 
 "Ex parte Leman in re Bwrrand (1876). 4 Ch. D. 23 ; 46 L. J. 
 Bank. 38; Ex parte Payne in re Gross (1879), 11 Ch, D. 539. The 
 position of the trustee as regards unregistered hills of sale is more fully 
 discussed later in this chapter. 
 
 7 Ex parte Holthausen In re Scheibler (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 722; 
 44 L. J. Bank. 26; Kerry v. James (1894), 21 O. A. R. 338; Kitching 
 v. Sides (1884), 6 O. R. 739; Robinson v. Cook (1884), 6 0. R. 590; 
 Zimmerman v. Sproat (1912), 26 O. L. R. 448; Wood v. Jogger 
 (1908), 9 W. L. R. 120; Harrison v. Nepisiquit Lumber Co., Ltd. 
 (1912), 11 E. L. R. 314, and see Clarkson v. Sterling (1888), 15 0. A. 
 R. 234. Consider the effect of Clarkson v. MoMaster (1895), 25 S. 
 C. R. 96, as construed.by Osier, J., in Hope v. May- (1896), 24 0. A. R. 
 16, 25 ; and see in the case of a partnership, Ex parte Wright in re 
 Briggs & Co. (1906), 2 K. B. 209; 74 L. J. K. B. 591. Difficulties in 
 enforcing such an agreement may develop by reason of section 31 with 
 respect to fraudulent preferences and by reason of the Provincial Bills of 
 Sale, and Chattel Mortgage Acts, see Kerry v. James, supra; Hope v. 
 May (1896), 24 O A. R. 16; In re Eslich ex parte Alexander (1876), 
 4 Ch. D. 503. 
 
 "In re Walli.- ex parte Jenks (1902), 1 K. B. 719; 71 L. J. K. B. 
 465; 9 Mans. 136; Re William Hamilton Mfg. Co. (1909), 1 0. W. N. 
 61, 421. The law in Quebec under a cession de Vens appears to be 
 otherwise. In Dominion Bank v. Aylmg (1916), Q. R. 26 K. B. 75, 
 it was held that the curator under a judicial abandonment of property is 
 a third party within the meaning of Art. 1571 of the Civil Code. He 
 can, therefore, take advantage of the fact that a person to whom the 
 debtor has sold a right of action has not perfected his title by notice. 
 See C. P. C. Art. 877. 
 
 "Collver v. Shaw (1873), 19 Gr. 599; John Macdonald & Co., Lit. 
 v. Tew (1914), 32 O. L. R. 262; Craig v. McKay et ah (1906), 12 
 O. L. R. 121. 
 
 10 In re Wallis ex parte Jenks, supra; John Macdonald & Co., Ltd. 
 v. Tew, supra; Craig v. McKay et al+ supra, and see in the case of an 
 assignment to a trustee when there is already an undischarged receiv- 
 ing order in existence: In re Clark ex parte Beardmore (1894), 2 Q. B. 
 393, 410; 63 L. J. Q. B. 806; 1 Mans. 207, and in the case of a liquida- 
 tor : Harrison v. Nipisiquit Lumber Co., Ltd., supra. 
 
 1 Re Wilson Estate (1915), 33 O. L. R. 500; Jones v. Barker 
 (1909) , 1 Ch. 321 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 167. 
 
POSITION OF TRUSTEE. 41 
 
 tion for non-payment of the price under Art. 1543 of Chapter vi. 
 the C.C. of Quebec 2 . Where a sale of goods is induced _ 
 ■by the fraud of the bankrupt the vendor may, within 
 a reasonable time, and even after notice of an act of 
 bankruptcy, disaffirm the sale and retake possession 
 of the goods 3 . 
 
 Similarly the trustee may take the property of the 
 bankrupt subject to having his title defeated by a con- 
 tingency, as where contractors before their bank- 
 ruptcy contract that if they do not proceed with the 
 work the plant shall beforfeited to the owners of the 
 lands 4 Cases in which forfeiture is conditioned on non- 
 completion of work must, however, be distinguished 
 from cases where the forfeiture is conditioned on the 
 bankruptcy of the contractor 5 , or from cases where the 
 contract is void because of non-compliance with such 
 Acts as Bills of Sale Acts". The forfeiture may take 
 place subsequently to the commencement of the bank- 
 ruptcy 7 . 
 
 Just as the debtor would have had to do, so must 
 the trustee take the usual steps to complete his title to 
 a chose in action if he wishes to prevent others first 
 giving notice to the person from whom the chose in 
 action is due 8 , for bankruptcy is not notice to all the 
 
 2 Rosenweig v. Hart ex parte Goldfine (1921), 1 C. B. R. 385, and 
 431; 56 D. L. R. 101 (Panneton, J.) ; In re Prima Skirt Co., Ltd., 
 Thompson's Claim (1921). 1 C. B. R. 438 (Pannetpn, J.), and see 
 as to estoppel in such case In re Hennimg (1921), 1 C. B. R. 461 
 (Panneton, J.). 
 
 "In re Eastgate ex parte Ward (1905), 1 K. B. 465 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 
 324 ; 12 Mans. 11. In this ease the fraud consisted in representing that 
 he meant to pay for the goods. The contract may even be disaffirmed 
 after the date of the receiving order: Tilley v. Bowman (1910), 1 K. B. 
 745 ; 7.9 L. J. K. B. 547 ; 17 Mans. 97. Where a bankrupt would have 
 been estopped from setting up his own fraud his trustee will likewise be 
 estopped: Harris v. Truman (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 264; 274, unless the 
 case falls within the doctrine of relation back. See notes to section 
 4(10). 
 
 l Ex parte Collins re Keen (1902), 1 K. B. 555; 71 L. J. K. B. 
 487; 9 Mans. 145; In re Wilkinson eas parte Fowler (1905), 2 K. B. 
 713, 720; 74 L. J. K. B. 969; 12 Mans. 377; Ex parte ~Newitt in re 
 Garrud (1881), 16 Oh. D. 522; 51 L. J. Oh. 381. 
 
 "As in Ex parte Jay in re Harrison (1880), 14 Ch. D. 19. 
 
 'Glimpson v. Coles (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 465; 58 L. J. Q. B. 346; 
 Church v. Sage (1892), 67 L. T. 800. 
 
 7 Ex parte Collins in re Keen (1902), 1 K. B. 555; 71 L. J. K. B. 
 487 ; 9 Mans. 145. 
 
 "Palmer v. Locke (1881), 18 Ch. D. 381; see also In re Stone's 
 Will (1893) , W. N. 50 ; SowerJiy v. Brooks, 4 B. & A. 523 ; Re Barr's 
 Trust; 4 K. & J. 219. 
 
42 POSITION OF TRUST EM. 
 
 Chapter vi. world 9 . But, as has already been pointed out, a liqui- 
 dator or other person in the position of the debtor can- 
 not as against an equitable chargee or assignee from 
 the debtor allege that the chargee has not perfected 
 his title, for in such case the liquidator stands in the 
 shoes of the debtor 10 . 'Such a case must be distin- 
 guished from one in which there had been a contract of 
 sale entered into before the date of the receiving 
 order, and a deposit paid to the debtor by the pur- 
 chaser, but no conveyance executed. Under these cir- 
 cumstances the trustee in bankruptcy becomes the 
 legal owner of the estate, and not merely the assignee 
 of the purchase money, and if the purchaser pays the 
 bankrupt without notice o'f the title of the trustee he 
 will not be discharged 1 . 
 
 While it is true in a general way that the trustee 
 steps into the shoes of the debtor, The Bankruptcy Act 
 puts the trustee in a position superior to that of the 
 debtor. Thus the trustee occupies a superior position 
 to that of the debtor by reason of the relation back of 
 his title which enables him to avoid transactions 
 entered into by the bankrupt 2 . The Act, moreover, 
 expressly avoids fraudulent preferences and certain 
 settlements and contracts; and with respect to such 
 transactions the trustee is in a better position than 
 the debtor 3 . It would appear that certain, if not all, 
 of the debtor's transactions with his property which 
 are acts of bankruptcy are void as against the trustee 4 . 
 
 "Per Jessel, M.R., in Palmer v. Locke, supra. 
 
 w Re WiUiam Hamilton Mfg. Go. (1909), 1 O. W. N. 61, 421. 
 
 *Ex parte Raolidge in re Pooley (18T8), 8 Ch. D. 367; 46 L. J. 
 Bank. 15. 
 
 2 Per Lindley, M.R., in In re Beeston ex parte Board of Trade 
 (1899) , 1 Q. B. 626, 630, 631 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 344 ; 6 Mans. 27. The rela- 
 tion back of the title of the trustee takes place only under a receiving 
 order. There is no relation back under an authorized 1 assignment. The 
 severity of the doctrine of relation back is mitigated by sec. 32: The 
 question of relation back is fully discussed in the notes to sections 
 4(10) and 32. And see per Holmested. R., In re Andrew Motherwell of ( 
 Canada,. Ltd. (1921), 20 O. W. N. 306, as to the effect of sec. 17(2), 
 which puts' the trustee in the position of a receiver. \ 
 
 a See per Lindley, M.R. in In re Beeston ex parte Board of Trade 
 (1899) , 1 Q. B. 626, 630, 631 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 344 ; 6 Mans. 27. See sees. 
 31, 30, 29. 
 
 * See notes to sec. 3. Generally speaking an act of bankruptcy 
 revokes a power of attorney, but if after the act of bankruptcy bat 
 before the adjudication the property is conveyed under the power to « 
 
POSITION OF TRUSTEE. 43 
 
 Thirdly, there are, in England at least, certain chapter vi. 
 matters which are contrary to the policy of the bank- 
 ruptcy law, though not expressly forbidden by the Act. 
 Thus the limitation of a man's own property to him- 
 self until bankruptcy and then over is void as against 
 the trustee 5 , though it may be good as between the 
 parties- 6 ; and the limitation of property or its equiva- 
 lent to another person, defeasible on the bankruptcy of 
 that person, is not contrary to the bankruptcy law 7 . But 
 while the trustee may attack transactions which are 
 against the bankruptcy law, he has no status to impeach 
 transactions (even though they are against the law of 
 the land) in which the debtor, being in pari delicto 
 with the person against whom the action is broug*ht, 
 could not have succeeded. Thus if the debtor before 
 the commencement of his bankruptcy has given money 
 away as a bribe, or has parted with money for some 
 fraudulent 8 or illegal purpose such as one which pre- 
 vented the discovery of a felony, the trustee cannot 
 recover the money or the property unless his title 
 relates back to cover the transaction 9 . 
 
 bona fide purchaser, who has no not'oe of the act of bankruptcy, the 
 purchaser may hold the property as against the trustee : Ex parte Snow- 
 ball in rj Douglas (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 534, 548. 
 
 * Ex parte Jay in re Harrison (1880), 14 Oh. D. 19; In re Jeavons 
 ex parte Mackay (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 643; 42 L. J. Bank. 68; In re 
 Williams ex parte Thompson (1877), 7 Ch. D. 138; 47 L. J. Bank. 26; 
 Rr Brewer's Settlement (1896), 2 Oh. 503; 65 L. J. Oh. 821; but see 
 under the then Engl'sh law in the case of a voluntary assignment: 
 Brooke v. Pearson (1859), 27 Beav. 181; Knight v. Browne (1861), 9 
 W. :R. 515 ; 4 L. T. 206. 
 
 8 Thus where an antenuptial settlement was made of a man's own 
 property on trust to pay the income to him for life or until he should 
 become outlawed or be declared a bankrupt, and from, and after the 
 determination of the trust to his wife for life, it was held that on his 
 bankruptcy his life interest vested indefeasibly in the trustee and was 
 no longer capable of being affected by any subsequent 'act of forfeiture 
 by the debtor, for while the limitation conditioned on bankruptcy was 
 void as against the trustee it was not void as between husband and 
 wife: In re Burroughs-Fowler (1916), 1 Ch. 251; 85 L. J. Ch. 550; 
 2 H. B. R. 108, and see Re Johnson ex parte Matthews and Wilkinson 
 (1904), 1 K. B. 134; 73 L. J. K. B. 220; 11 Mans. 14, and see notes 
 to sec. 25. 
 
 7 Higinbotham v. Holme (1811), 19 Ves. 88; Mackintosh v. Pogose 
 (1895), 1 Ch. 505; 64 L. J. Oh. 274; 2 Mans. 27. 
 
 8 Langley v. Van Allen (1902), 32 g. O R. 174. 
 
 'In re Mapleoack ex parte Galdeoott (1876), 4 Ch. D. 150; 13 
 Cox 374; contrast Munro v. Standard Bank of Canada (1913), 30 O. 
 L. R. 12, 17 ; 5 O. W. N. 508. 
 
44 POSITION OF TRUSTEE. 
 
 chapter vi. A debtor cannot by any assignment or charge give 
 a good title as against his trustee in bankruptcy to 
 profits of his business accruing after the commence- 
 ment of the bankruptcy; for they are not his property; 
 and the trustee may retain them or sue for them as the 
 case may be, without the enactment of any statutory 
 provision purporting to give him that power 10 . 
 
 Similarly by reason of the nature of winding-up 
 proceedings,, a liquidator of a company has rights 
 which the company would not have. Thus a share- 
 holder may have taken shares under circumstances 
 which would entitle him to say to the company while a 
 going concern, "relieve me from these shares", but 
 on the winding-up order being made that right is gone, 
 unless proceedings have already been commenced to 
 enforce it 1 , and a liquidator may sue directors for 
 money paid out of capital to shareholders as interest 2 , 
 or dividends 3 . 
 
 An important point remains to be determined, 
 namely, whether the trustee under a receiving order or 
 authorized assignment or a composition, extension or 
 scheme is able without special enabling words to 
 impeach transactions which by provincial law are 
 avoided in favour of subsequent purchasers, of execu- 
 tion creditors or of creditors generally. Acts respect- 
 ing Chattel Mortgages, Bills of Sale, and Conditional 
 Sales of Goods are provincial Acts, which are in no 
 way directly referred to in The Bankruptcy Act, except 
 in section 30*. 
 
 The position of the assignee under the Insolvency 
 Act of 1875 was covered by section 39, which read in 
 part as follows : 
 
 10 Ex parte Nichols in re Jones (1883), 22_Oh. D. 782; 52 L. I 
 Oh. 635, and see notes to sec. 2(gg). 
 
 1 In re London Celluloid (1888), 39 Ch. D. 190. 204. See where 
 delay on the part of the company prevented action by the liquidator: 
 In re Florence Land and Public Works Co., NichoVs Case (1885), 29 
 Oh. D. 421. 
 
 2 In re Sharpe, Masonic and General Life Assce. Co. v. SteW 
 (1892) , 1 Ch. 154. 
 
 8 In re Exchange Banking Co., Flitcroft's Case (1882), 21 Ch. V. 
 519. 
 
 * See section 35. H the trustee has this right rule 120 prescribes 
 the forum and procedure. 
 
POSITION OF TRUSTEE. 45 
 
 "The assignee in his own name as such, shall chapter vi. 
 have the "exclusive right to sue for the recovery of 
 all debts due or claimed by the insolvent of every 
 kind and nature whatsoever ; . . . and to take both 
 in the prosecution and defence of all suits, all the 
 proceedings that the insolvent might have taken 
 for the benefit of his estate, or that any creditor 
 might have taken for the benefit of the creditors 
 generally. ' ' 
 
 It was held under that section by the Court of 
 Appeal for Ontario that an assignee in insolvency 
 represented execution creditors for the purpose of 
 avoiding mortgages for want of compliance with the 
 existing Chattel Mortgage Act 5 . When the Insolvent 
 Act of 1875 was repealed and the provincial system of 
 voluntary assignments was introduced, it was held in 
 Ontario, following older cases 6 , that an assignee under 
 a voluntary assignment might not attack such trans- 
 actions without express statutory authority 7 . This 
 
 'Re Barrett (1880), 5 O. A. R. 206; Re Andrews (1877), 2 O. A. 
 R. 25; Bnarr v. Smith (1880), 45 U. C. Q. B. 156. Contrast Ontario 
 Bank v. Wilcox (1878) , 43 U. C. Q. B. 460, 490, and O'Callaghan v. 
 Cowan (1877), 41 U. C. Q. B. 272, 284, and see per Burton, J.A., in 
 Paries v. St. George (1884), 10 O. A. R. 496, 510, 516, and Bertram v. 
 Penary (1877), 27 U. 0. C. P. 371. 
 
 * In MoMaster v. Clare (1859) , 7 Gr. 550, it was held that assignees 
 under a voluntary assignment could not impeach a sale made with intent 
 to defeat or delay creditors, for if they sought to impeach it as creditors 
 they> were not execution creditors, and if they sought to impeach it as 
 purchasers the Provincial Act (1858), 22 Vic. c. 96, ss. 18, 19, did not 
 give subsequent purchasers the right to avoid such a transaction. 
 
 ' Lumsden v. Scott (1883), 4 O. R. 323; Eitching v. Hicks (1884), 
 6 O. R. 739, per Strong, J., in Burland v. Moffatt (1884) , 11 S. C. R. 
 76, and in McCall v. McDonald (1886), 13 S. C. R. 247, 256, and see 
 remarks in Parkes v. St. George (1882), 2 O. R. 342, 347; Goats v. 
 Kelly (1886), 15 O. A. R. 81; Re Coleman, S6 TJ. C. Q. B. 559; contra, 
 Boynton v. Boyd, 12 U. C. C. P. 334. .The law is the same in Quebec. 
 The Supreme Court of Canada held in Burland v. Moffatt (1884), 11 
 S. C. R. 76, that in the absence of a statutory title to sue as repre- 
 senting creditors such as 1 is conferred by bankruptcy and insolvency 
 statutes, an assignee ii» trust for creditors can only enforce the same 
 rights as the person making the assignment. See for comments on part 
 of the judgment in Burland v. Moffatt, Porteous v. Reynar (1887), 13 
 A. C. 120, 130, 131 ; and see per Taschereau, J., in Mitchell v. Holland 
 (1889), 16 S. C. R. 687, 697. The statutory title referred to was 
 given the assignee under a cession de biens dn Quebec, C. P C. Art. 877. 
 A similar rule preyails in other provinces: Diehl v. Wallace (1905), 
 2 W. L. R. 24; Home v. Gait (1908), 1 A. L. R. 392, 398; Lennox v. 
 Alaska Mercantile Co. (1906) 4 W. L. R. 333. Cf. Bertrand v. Parkes 
 (1892), 8 M. L. R. 175; and Tollman v. Smcrt (1894), 25 O. R. 661. 
 
46 POSITION OF TRUSTEE, 
 
 chaptervi. resulted in amendments being made expressly eonfer- 
 ring this power on the assignee 8 . 
 
 R might be thorrght that the position at a liqui- 
 dator under the Winding-up Act would be similar to 
 that of an assignee or trustee in insolvency, and that 
 the rule laid down in Re Barrett 9 would have been 
 applied. The authorities on this, point are at present in 
 conflict. There are cases to the effect that as the Wind- 
 ing-Up Act takes away the creditor's right of action, 
 the liquidator stands for the creditors and is entitled 
 to enforce their rights 10 , but there are cases where that 
 right has been doubted 1 , and there is a clear decision 
 of Biddell, J., 2 holding that a liquidator cannot take 
 advantage of the provisions of The Bills of Sale Act', 
 under which it is provided that mortages and convey- 
 ances not registered as in the Act provided, "shall be 
 absolutely null and void as against creditors of the 
 mortgagor and as against subsequent purchasers or 
 mortgagees in good faith and for valuable considera- 
 tion." That very, learned Judge said, "We have a 
 statute which makes void perfectly legitimate and 
 proper transactions and this statute must be read 
 strictly. I think that one who is not a creditor cannot 
 claim as though he were a creditor unless he can bring 
 himself within the words of the Act" 4 . 
 
 It has also been held by the Supreme Court of New 
 Brunswick, 5 that the liquidator under The Winding-Vf 
 
 8 See 55 Vic. c. 26 (Ont.) amending R. S. O. 1887, c. 125, and per 
 Osier, J.A., in Kerry V. James (1894) , 21 O. A. R. 338 ; Hope v. May 
 (1897), 24 0. Ai. R. 16, 26. 
 
 9 (1880) . 5 O A. R. 206. 
 
 10 Re Canadian Camera Co., William's Claim (1901) , 2 0. L. E> 
 6771 679; National Trust Co. v. Trusts and Guarantee Co. (1912), 26 
 O. L. R. 279; see also Johnston v. Wade (1908), 17 0. L. R. 372. If 
 the question whether the trustee can sue depends on whether the credi- 
 tors are by The Bankruptcy Act deprived of their right of action 
 against the debtor (In re South Essex Estuary and Reclamation Co. 
 (1869). U R. 4 Ch. 215, 217), it should be noted that there is m> 
 absolute deprivation under sections 6(1), 7 and 13a of The Bankruptcy 
 Act. See Kitching v. Hides (1884). 6 O. R. 739, and s. 35. 
 
 1 Rainy Lake Lumber Co. (1888), 15 O. A. R. 749; Kinsman v. 
 Parker (1919), 52 N. S. R. 553; 1 0. B. B. 161. 
 
 2 Re Canadian Shipbuilding Co. (1912), 26 O. L. B. 564; 3 0. W. 
 N. 1476 ; 4 O. W. N. 157. 
 
 8 R. S. O. (1897), c. 148, 
 1 Ibid, p. 1479. 
 
 "Harrison V. Nepisiquit Lumber Co., Ltd. (1912), 11 E. h. B. 
 314. 
 
POSITION OF TRUSTEE. 47 
 
 Act is not in the position of an assignee in bankruptcy chapter vi. 
 or of an execution creditor 6 , and that The Winding-Up 
 Act is not a "law relating to insolvency" within the 
 meaning of the New Brunswick Bills of Sale Act, on 
 the ground that The Winding-up Act provides for the 
 winding-up of companies organized under Dominion 
 charters where the company may be solvent 7 . 
 
 On the other hand, there is the argument to be 
 found in the English practice under 13 Eliz. c. 5, with 
 respect to the avoidance of conveyances which "delay, 
 hinder or defraud creditors or others." In the inter- 
 pretation of that statute it has been held that the repre- 
 sentatives of creditors are considered creditors within 
 the Act 8 , and that the bankruptcy law puts the trustee 
 in the position of the representative of all the credi- 
 tors, thus giving him a higher and better title than the 
 bankrupt himself 9 . 
 
 6 Following a remark of Kay, J., in Ross v. Army and Navy Hotel 
 Co. (1886), 34 Ch. D. 43, 51. 
 
 7 Harrison v. Nepisiquit Lumber Co., Ltd., supra, at p. 327. See 
 Chap. IV. While it may yet be open to argument whether without apt 
 words in a statute conferring that right on him the liquidator of a com- 
 pany can attack a bill of sale on the ground that the technicalities of the 
 Act have not been complied with, it seems that he cannot object that 
 there has been some defect in the resolutions or internal proceedings of 
 the company which invalidate the mortgage ; for in that respect he 
 stands in tl.e position of the company : Hammond v. BanJc of Ottawa 
 (19.10). 22 O. L. R. 73. 
 
 "Doe d. Grimsby v. Ball (1843), 11 M. & W. 531, where Parke, B., 
 said : " The assignee of an insolvent debtor represents the creditors for 
 all purposes, and if any fraud exists in a transaction to which the 
 insolvent was a party;, the assignee may take advantage of it. A 
 deed which is void as against creditors is void also as against those who 
 represent creditors." Alderson, B., said in the same case : ," If a deed 
 be void as against creditors the assignees who represent creditors may 
 avoid it," and see Martin v. Pewtress (1769), 4 Burr. 2477; Anderson 
 v. Maltby, 2 Ves. Jr. 244, 255 ; Ex parte Russell in re Butterworth 
 (1882 1 ), 19 Oh. D. 588; In re Lane-Fox ex parte QimUett (190O), 2 
 Q. B. 508, 512 ; see as to the rights of a creditor in Ontario suing to 
 , set aside a conveyance as fraudulent under 13 Bliz. c. 5 ; Oliver v. Mc- 
 Laughlin (1893), 24 0. R. 41; Urguhart v. Aird (1905), 6 O. W. R. 
 155; Tierney v. Slattery (1906), 7 O. W. R. 489, and McDonald V. 
 Gurran (1909)1. 1 0. W. N. 121. See as to the effect of section 17(2) 
 of The Bankruptcy Act, per Holmested 1 . R., In re Andrew Motherwell of 
 Canada, Limited (1921) , 20 O. W. N. 306. 
 
 'Per James, L.J., In ex parte Butters in re Harrison (1880), 14 
 Ch. D. 265, 267. See also where the point at ' issue was whether the 
 proceedings should be taken in the 'bankruptcy court or in the ordinary 
 courts: In ex parte Brown im re Yates (1879). 11 Ch. D. 148. James, 
 L.J., said in the course of the argument, " when the trustee takes only 
 what the bankrupt himself would have taken the matter should be left 
 
48 
 
 POSITION OF TRUSTEE. 
 
 Chapter vi. See further as to the right of creditors and others 
 to take advantage of technical objections under Bills 
 of Sale Acts and. legislation in pari materia, Heaton 
 v. Flood 10 , Meriden Britannia Co. v. Braden 1 , Clarhson 
 v. McMaster 2 , and Gillard v. Bollert 3 . 
 
 to the ordinary tribunals. But where by the operation of the bankrupt 
 law the trustee claims by a higher and better title than the bankrupt 
 the matter is one which was intended to be dealt with by the court of 
 bankruptcy." See also per Bramwell and James, L.JJ., In ex parte Ball 
 re Shepherd (1879), 10 Ch. D. 667; 48 L. J. Bank. 57; but contrast 
 per Baggallay, L.J., in S. C. The question of the court is covered by 
 Rule 120. ' „ , 
 
 10 (1898), 29 O. R. 87. ' " 
 
 1 (1894), 21 O. A. R. 352. ■ 
 
 2 (1895) , 22 O. A. R. 138 ; 25 S. C, R. 96. 
 ' (1893) , 24 O. R. 147. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 49 
 
 9-10 GEO. V., CHAPTER 36. 
 
 (As amended by Chaps. 34 and 17 of the Statutes of 1920 and 1921. 
 Office consolidation). 
 
 An Act Respecting Bankruptcy. 
 
 (Assented to July 7th, 1919.) 
 
 His Majesty, by and with the advice and con- f 'o'acio 
 
 sent of the Senate and House of Commons 
 
 of Canada, enacts as follows: — 
 
 Short Title. 
 
 1. This Act may be cited as The Bankruptcy short title. 
 Act. 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise Definitions, 
 requires or implies, the expression : — 
 
 Cross References Rules: Further definitions 2. 
 
 See generally as to Interpretation of Dominion 
 Statutes, E. S. C. 1906, c. 1, The Interpretation Act. 
 In cases in which the Bankruptcy Act utilizes Provin- 
 cial Law the definitions in Provincial Interpretation 
 Acts may be applicable. 
 
 2 (a) " affidavit" includes statutory declaration "Affidavit.' 
 and affirmation : 
 
 Cross References Act: Petition verified by 4(2) ; affidavit for 
 registration 11(11) ; sworn before whom 11(12) and 79. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Generally 26 to 33; when filed 18; 
 written proceedings 8. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Affidavit by debtor as to after-acquired 
 property 77 ; in support of order of committal 54. 55 ; in support of appli- 
 cation to adjust rights of contri'butories 40; of justification 12; of 
 service of petition 5 ; new or substituted trustee 35 ; truth of statements 
 in petition 3, 4 ; fees for drawing, see Tariff of Costs ; affidavit verifying 
 application by trustee for discharge 43 ; of execution of assignment 19. ' 
 
50 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Sections See as to when affirmation may be taken in lieu of 
 
 2(b) t0 2(f) oath, Canada Evidence Act, E. S. C 1906, c. 145, s 15 
 (1)(2). 
 
 ^Alimentary 2 (b) "alimentary debt" means a debt incurred 
 Debt '" for necessaries or maintenance : 
 
 Cross References Act: 13(12) and see as to necessaries of life 
 61(1) (d). 
 
 "Appeal 2 (c) "Appeal Court" means the court haying 
 
 Court " jurisdiction in bankruptcy, under this Act, 
 
 on appeal : 
 
 Cross References Act: Appeal Courts of Bankruptcy 63 (3}. 
 Cross References Rules: Appeals 68 to 73. 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, Rule 3. 
 
 "Assign- 2 (cZ) "assignment" includes conveyance: 
 
 Cross References Act: Authorized assignment 2(6) ; an act of 
 bankruptcy 3(a) ; and composition, see 13^15); of book debts 30; 
 assignor 2(e) ; authorized assignor 2(g). 
 
 "Assignor." 2 (e) "assignor" means the maker.of an assign- 
 ment, whether under this Act such maker 
 may lawfully make such assignment or such 
 assignment may lawfully be made, or not: 
 
 Cross References Act: Authorized assignor 2(g) ; see 13(15); 
 assignment 2(d) ; authorized assignment 2(f). 
 
 "Authorized 2 (/) "authorized assignment" means ah as- 
 
 assignment." signment made as provided in this Act to 
 
 an authorized trustee by an authorized 
 
 assignor of all his property for the general 
 
 benefit of his creditors : 
 
 Cross References Act: Assignment includes conveyance 2(d) < 
 authorized assignment may be made 9; form of 10; effect of 10, 11(1; 
 (a)(6), 11(10) ; not within operation of provincial laws 11(4); to 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 51 
 
 be registered in certain cases 11(8) (14) ; effect of non-registration Sections 
 11(15) ; mistakes in 12; authorized trustee 14; an authorized assign- 2(g), 2(h) 
 ment an act of bankruptcy 3(a). • 
 
 Cross References Forms: Assignment for the general 'benefit of 
 creditors 18, 19. 
 
 2 (g) "authorized assignor" means an insol- "Authorized 
 vent assignor whose debts provable under asslgnor " 
 this Act exceed five hundred dollars : 
 
 Cross References Act: Assignor defined 2(e) ; insolvent defined 
 2(i) ; authorized assignment 2(f), 9, 10. 
 
 2 (h) "available act of bankruptcy" means an" Ava ;i aWe 
 act of bankruptcy committed within six^°^ nk " 
 months before the date of (1) the presenta- 
 tion of a bankruptcy petition, or (2) the 
 making of an authorized assignment, or (3) 
 the payment, delivery, conveyance, assign- 
 ment, transfer, contract, dealing or transac- 
 tion- mentioned in section thirty-two of this 
 Act. 
 
 Cross References Act: Acts of bankruptcy 3 ; bankruptcy peti- 
 tion 4 ; authorized assignment 9, 10 ; what is not an available act of 
 'bankruptcy 8(2) ; effect of notice of an available act of bankruptcy 
 32(1) (d)(ii). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. 167. 
 
 This is the section which was enacted by The Bank- 
 ruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921 1 . 
 
 While some meaning can be given to clauses (2) and 
 (3) of the amendment, they raise difficulties: 
 
 By section 3(a) of the Act an authorized assignment 
 constitutes an act of bankruptcy. By sections 3(a) and 
 4(1) (3), an authorized assignment made within six 
 months before the presentation of a bankruptcy peti- 
 tion is an available act of bankruptcy. But clause (2) 
 of the amendment in effect says that any other act of 
 bankruptcy committed within six months prior to the 
 
 1 The previous section read : — 
 
 2(h) "available act of bankruptcy" means an act of bankruptcy 
 available for a bankruptcy petition at the date of the presentation of a 
 pelit'on on which a receiving order is made. 
 
52 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Sections 
 2(i), 2(j) 
 
 making of 'the authorized assignment in question is 
 .made an available act of bankruptcy. This probably 
 was not intended. It is contrary to the express, word- 
 ing of section 4 ( 3 ) ( b ) . 
 
 Turning now to clause (3). Section 32 is designed 
 only to protect transactions which would be affected 
 by the relation back of the title of the trustee. Under 
 our Act the relation back of the title of the trustee is 
 much less extensive than under the English Act. 
 Under that Act the title of the trustee relates back to 
 the time at which the act of bankruptcy was com- 
 mitted on which a receiving order is made. Under our 
 Act the relation back of the title of the trustee is to 
 the date of the presentation of the petition on which 
 the receiving order is made. Under our Act therefore 
 section 32 protects only those transactions which take 
 place after the date of the presentation, of the peti- 
 tion. Had clause (3) of the amendment hot been made, 
 the word "available act of bankruptcy" in. section 32 
 would have meant an act of bankruptcy committed 
 within six months. before the date of the presentation 
 of a bankruptcy petition. The effect of the amend- 
 ment in clause (3) may therefore be to cut down that 
 period to six months before the transaction com- 
 plained of. 
 
 "Banker." 
 
 2 (i) "banker" includes any person owning, 
 conducting or in charge of any bank or place 
 where money or securities for money are 
 received upon deposit or held subject, to 
 withdrawal by depositors : 
 
 Cross References Act: Duties cf 34; rights of banks preserved 
 88; 'bank defined 2(j). 
 
 "Chartered 
 bank." 
 
 " 2 (i) "bank" or "chartered bank" means aa 
 incorporated bank carrying. on the- business 
 of banking under The Bank Act;; 
 
 Cross Beferences Aci: Banker, defined 2(i)'; corporation does 
 aot include bank:2(fe);Mghts 'of hanks, preserved 88. ; 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 53 
 
 ,2 (k) "corporation" includes any company in- sections 
 
 2(k) to 2(m) 
 
 corporated or authorized to carry on busi- 
 ness by or under an Act of the Parliament « Corpor 
 of Canada or of any of the Provinces of *"»•" 
 Canada, and any incorporated company, 
 wheresoever incorporated, which has an 
 office in or carries on business within Can- 
 ada, but does not include building societies 
 having a capital stock, nor incorporated 
 banks, savings banks, insurance companies, 
 trust companies, loan companies or railway 
 companies: 
 
 Cross References Aet: As" to winding-up 2(o), and see 66(2) ; 
 creditor in the case of 2(m) ; person includes corporation 2(aa) ; con- 
 tributories to 36; may vote, 42(18) ; may act by any officer under seal 
 85; directors, officers and shareholders are restricted -creditors of 48(4). 
 
 Cross References Rules: Affidavits on behalf of 32; as to wind- 
 ing-up proceedings 13; service on 82; contributory denned 2(1). 
 
 R. S. C. 1906, c. 144, The Winding-up Act does not 
 apply to building societies which have not a capital 
 stock. R. S. C. 1906, c. 144,. s. 7. 
 
 It has been held that a foreign corporation carry- 
 ing on business in Canada may be adjudged bankrupt. 
 In re National Shipbuilding Co., (1921) 1 C. B. R. 430 
 (Panneton, J.). 
 
 2 (I) "court" or "the court" means the court ;'Court." 
 which is invested with original jurisdiction '" rhe0<>urt " 
 in bankruptcy under this Act : 
 
 Cross References Act: See generally sections 63 to 74 ; appeal 
 court 2(c) ; application to 35, 39, 40(2), 46(8), 53(2) ; approval of 
 obtained by fraud 13(14) ; where wrong court chosen 4(4), 6(4).; with 
 respect to a composition, etc. 13(15) ; [powers of, see Index. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Defined 2(1) ; see generally 4 to 6 ; 
 proceedings 7 to 13 ; motions and practice 14 to 19 ; security in court 
 21 to 25 ; affidavits 26 to 33 ; rules relating to business of the court 
 63 to 66. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. 167; Rule 3. 
 
 2 (to) "creditor" with relation to any meeting ".creditor.- 
 held under authority of this Act, shall, in 
 
54 
 
 Sections 
 2(n), 2(o) 
 
 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 the case of a corporation, include bond- 
 holder, debenture-holder, shareholder and 
 member of the corporation, and each class 
 thereof shall in meeting express its views or 
 wishes in manner prescribed by General 
 Rules. 
 
 Cross References Act: Creditor may include surety 31(2) ; 
 secured creditor 2(gg), 46; restricted 48, 29(2) ■ favoured 51(2), 52(1) ■ 
 meetings of 42. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Defined 2(1) ; notice of meeting to 
 112 ; different classes of creditors to express views separately 114 ; dis- 
 putes between different classes of creditors' 114. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Notice of meeting- 20, 21, 32. 
 
 See under section 4(1) as to creditors who may 
 present a bankruptcy petition; and under section 17 
 the position of the trustee with respect to creditors 
 generally. Who are -creditors, and what are their 
 rights, may to a certain extent depend on provincial 
 law ; for example, the right of landlords may differ in 
 different provinces notwithstanding the provisions of 
 section 52. Compare the notes to section 2 (o) debtor, 
 as to provincial and Dominion laws respecting status. 
 As to the rights of secured creditors, see sections 46, 
 42(10). 
 
 "Debt prov- 
 able in 
 bankruptcy.'' 
 "Provable 
 - debt." 
 "Debt prov- 
 able." 
 
 2 (n) "debt provable in bankruptcy" or "prov- 
 able debt" or "debt provable" includes any 
 debt or liability by this Act made provable 
 in bankruptcy or in proceedings under an 
 authorized assignment : 
 
 Cross References Act: Debts provable 44, 49, 50 ; and see 29(3) 
 and 52(2) (3) ; method of proof 45, 46. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Proof of debts 115 to 119. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Proof .of debt 47, 48. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. 167. 
 
 "Debtor." 
 
 "2 (o) "debtor" includes any person, whether a 
 British subject or not, who, at the time when 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 55 
 
 any act of bankruptcy was done or suffered section 2(0) 
 by him, or any authorized assignment was 
 made by him, (a) was personally present in 
 Canada, or (&) ordinarily resided or had "a 
 place of residence in Canada, or (c) was 
 • carrying on business in Canada personally 
 or by means of an agent or manager, or 
 (d) was a corporation or a member of a firm 
 or partnership which carried on business in 
 Canada; and where the debtor is a corpora- 
 tion, as defined bythis section, the Winding- 
 up Act, chapter one hundred and forty-four 
 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, 
 shall not, except by leave of the court, ex- 
 tend or apply to it notwithstanding any- 
 thing in that Act contained, but all proceed 1 
 ings instituted under that Act before this 
 Act comes into force or afterwards, by leave 
 of the court, may and shall be as lawfully 
 and effectually continued under that Act as 
 if the provisions of this paragraph had not 
 been made." 
 
 Cross References Act: Generally see Index. As .to the use of 
 
 the phrase " Debtor (whether a bankrupt, assignor or person who hag 
 proposed a composition, etc.)" see section 2(x). Corporation defined 
 2(h) ; married women 2(v), 75; petition against partners 69, 70; the 
 Act does not apply to wage-earners and farmers 8(1) ; wage-earner 
 defined 2(kk) ; Rules relating to corporations 66. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Generally see Index. Rules relating to 
 corporations 13, 32, 82, 122 to 130. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Warrant of arrest of 61; appoint- 
 ment for examination of 62. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. 1(2), and see 
 a. 4(1) (d) ; Rule 3. 
 
 ANALYSIS OF NOTES. 
 Debtor. 
 
 Wage-earners and farmers. 
 Infants. 
 
 Unmarried or widowed women. 
 Married women. 
 Indians. 
 Lunatics. 
 Convicts. 
 
 Where the debtor is a corporation. 
 Foreigner. 
 Time when act of bankruptcy was done. 
 
56 
 
 THM BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 2(.o.) 
 
 Debtor. 
 
 Wage-earn- 
 ers and 
 farmers. 
 
 Infants. 
 
 Ordinarily resided. 
 Place of residence. 
 Carrying on business. 
 Onus of proof,. 
 
 This sub-section was, by 10-11 Geo. V. c. 34, The 
 Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1920, substituted for 
 tbe original sub-section 1 . 
 
 It was decided under the old bankruptcy statutes 
 that no person who was not a debtor could be made a 
 bankrupt, and no person could be a debtor unless a 
 remedy could be had against him personally as upon 
 and for a debt 2 . It was therefore 7 important to con- 
 sider not only the status of persons with respect to 
 their capacity to contract but also the remedies against 
 particular classes of judgment debtors. The s'tatus of 
 infants, married women and lunatics, under the Act, 
 may vary in the different provinces, depending on the 
 local law. The status of Indians depends on Dominion 
 ,law. 
 
 The bankruptcy provisions of the Act (Part I) do 
 not apply to wage-earners or to persons engaged solely 
 in farming or the tillage of the soil 3 . 
 
 Although by English common law an "infant can 
 contract a debt for necessaries, which term includes 
 not only meat and drink, but all articles fit to maintain 
 him in his station 4 , it has not been decided whether 
 the incurring of such a debt renders him subject to 
 
 1 The original sub-section read : — 
 
 (o) " debtor " includes any person, whether a British subject or not, 
 who, at the time when any act of bankruptcy was done or suffered by 
 him, or any authorized assignment was made by him, ( a) was person- 
 ally present in Canada, or (5) ordinarily resided or had a place of 
 residence in , Canada, or (c) was carrying on business in Canada per- 
 sonally or by means of an agent or manager, or (<J). was a corporation 
 or a member of a firm or partnership which carried on "business ill 
 Canada : and where the debtor is a corporation!, as defined by this 
 section, the Winding-up Act, chapter one hundred and forty-four of the 
 Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, shall not extend or apply to it, 
 notwithstanding anything in that Act contained, but all proceedings 
 instituted under that Act before this Act comes into force may and shall 
 be as lawfully and effectually continued under that Act as if the pro- 
 visions of this paragraph had not been made. 
 
 2 Per Brett, L.J., in Ex parte Jones in re Grissell, 1879, 12 
 Ch. D. 484, 488 ; 48 L. J. Bank 109. 
 
 3 Section 8(1). 
 
 'Hands v. Slaney (1800), T. R. 578; Peters v. Fleming (1840), 
 6 M. & W. 42 ; 9 L. J. Ex. 81 ; Ryder v. Wombell, 1868, L. R. 4 Ex. 32; 
 38 L. J. Ex. 8. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 57 
 
 proceedings in bankruptcy founded thereon 5 . It Section 2(0) 
 has, however, been held that an infant who has traded — 
 cannot be adjudicated a bankrupt on the. petition of a 
 person who has supplied him on credit with goods for 
 trade purposes, but to whom he has made no express 
 representation that he was of full age 6 . Whether, if 
 the infant- had expressly represented himself to be of 
 full age an adjudication could be made quoere 7 . The 
 fact that an infant himself files a liquidation proceed- 
 ing, which is an act of bankruptcy, does not enable him 
 to be made a bankrupt; ,for it does not alter his 
 status*. 
 
 An unmarried woman or a widow has by English unmarried 
 common law full status, and may therefore become a^ r ™ d n ° wed 
 debtor within the meaning of the Act. 
 
 A married woman, so far as she is constituted a Married 
 femme sole by the Bankruptcy Act may probably be women - 
 adjudged bankrupt 9 , for not only has she status to 
 contract, but' section 75 provides that judgment against 
 her shall have effect as though she were personally 
 bound. Section 75, however, applies only to married 
 women who are traders. Under the corresponding 
 
 E 7» re Soltykoff ex parte Morgrett (1891), 1 Q. B. 413; 60 L. J. 
 Q. B. 339 ; 8 Mor. 27. 
 
 "Ex parte and in re Jones (1881), 18 Ch. D. 109; 50 L. J. Ch. 673 
 
 ' Ex parte and in re Jones, supra. See Levene v. Brougham, 53 
 Sol. J. 243: 25 T. L. R. 265, and R. Leslie, Ltd. v. Sheill (1914), 
 A. C. 607 ; 3 K. B. 607 ; 83 L. J. K. B. 1145. 
 
 B Ex parte and in re Jones, supra, at 123 and 126, and see as to an 
 assignment by a firm in which there is an infant partner :■ Powell v. 
 Calder, 8 O. It. 505. 
 
 The effect of the following statutes and cases should be considered : — 
 Ontario (1914), R. S. 0. c. 102, Statute of Frauds, s. 7; Quebec, see 
 Civil Code, Articles 985-987; Nova Scotia, 1900, R. S. N. S. c. 141, 
 Statute of Frauds, s. 9; New Brunswick, 1908, C. S. N. B. c. 140, 
 Statute of Frauds, s. 6 ; Prince Edward Island, see Lefroy, Constitutional 
 Law of Canada, ed. 1918, p. 52; Manitoba, Sinclair v. Mulligan (1888), 
 5 M. L. R. 17 ; British Columbia. 1911, R. S. B. C. c. 107, Infants' Act, 
 ss. 39, 40, 41; Alberta, R. S C, 1886, c. 50, s.-ll, 1905 (Dom.) 4-5 Ed. 
 VII. c. 3, ». 16, and see Brand v. Griffin (1908) , 1 Alta. L. R. 510 ; 
 Saskatchewan, R. S. C, 1886, c. 50, s. 11; 1905 (Dom.), 4-5 Ed. VII. 
 c. 42, s. 16; North- West Territories, R. S. C, 1906. c. 62, s. 12, and 
 compare Bills of Exchange Act, R S. C, 1906, c. 119, ss. 26, 48. 
 
 See on the English Infant's Relief Act : Ex parte Kibble in re 
 Onslow (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 373; 44 L. J. Bank. 63. 
 
 0| See where a married woman is considered a femme sole, her 
 husband being civiliter mortuus: Ex parte Franks (1831), 7 Bing. 762, 
 and see La Vie v. Phillips (1765), 3 Burr. 1776; Sparrow v. Garruthers, 
 2 W. B:. 1197; Ramsden v. Brearley, L. R. 10 Q. B. 147; 44 L J 
 Q. h. 46. 
 
58 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 2(o) English section it has authoritatively been held that a 
 married woman who is not a trader 10 is not subject 
 to the bankruptcy laws although she has separate 
 estate 1 , for execution does not issue against her 
 person 2 . The effect of section 2(v), which is not 
 in the English Act, should not be overlooked. That 
 
 10 A married woman continues to trade so long as her trade debts 
 or liabilities for torts are undischarged: In re Worsley (1901),-1 K. B. 
 309; 70 I/. J. K. B. 92; 8 Mans. 8; In re Dagnall (1896), 2 Q. B. 
 407; 65 L. J. Q. B. 666; 3 Mans. 218; In re Reynolds etc parte White 
 Bros., Ltd. (1915)!. 2 K. B. 186; 59 Sol J.; (1915), W. N. 84. A 
 trade belonging exclusively to a nla-med woman, but managed by her 
 husband on her behalf, is a trade carried on by the married woman 
 separately from her husband: In re Simon (1909), 1 K. B. 201; 78 
 L. J. K. B. 392 1 ; 16 Mans. 96. and see In re Florence Edwards em parte 
 Harvey, 2 Mans. 182, and In re Worsley, supra. 
 
 1 In re Gardiner esc parte Coulson (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 249; 57 
 L. J. Q. B. 149 ; 5 Mor. 1. Before the common law was altered by 
 statute a woman who married- lost her status to contract; and all her 
 property passed to her husband. According" y she could not be sued in 
 contract. If she entered into a contract without the authority of, her 
 husband, there was no remedy in respect of it ; and if she entered 
 into a contract with his authority, he alone could be sued on it : In re and 
 ex parte Morley, Scott v. Morley (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 120; 57 L. J. Q. B. 
 43 ; 4 Mor. 286 In England the Married Woman's Property Act, 1882, 45 
 & 46 Vic c. 75, in giving to a woman the right of separate estate, gave 
 her the right to sue and be sued ; but made damages or costs recovered 
 against her payable out of her separate property only. Execution did 
 not issue against her person. At common "aw, however, a judgment 
 against a married woman was in certain cases personal, as where con- 
 tracts made by her before marriage were not sued on until after her 
 marriage, or where she had committed certain torts : In re and ex parte 
 Morley, Scott v. Morley, supra. In all the Provinces except Quebec and 
 Saskatchewan the statute law regarding capacity of married women to 
 contract is similar to the present English Statute law. In Saskatchewan 
 every married woman is capable of entering into and rendering herself 
 liable on contract as if she were a femme sole. The effect of the fol'ow- 
 ing statutes should be considered: Ontario, R. S. O. 1914, c. 149, c. 150; 
 Quebec, see Civil Code Articles 985-987, 173-184, R. S. Q. 1909, Art. 
 7255 ; Nova Scotia, 1900, R. S. N. S. 112 ; New Brunswick, 1903, C. S. 
 of N. B., c. 78 ; Prince Edward Island, 1903, 3 Ed. VII. c. 9, amended 
 1908, 8 Ed. VII. c. 5 ; Manitoba, 19131. R S. M. c. 106; British Columbia; 
 1911, R. S. B. C. 152; Alberta, R. S. C. 1886, c. 50, s. 11; 
 C. O. N. W. T. 1898, c. 47, (1905) 4-5 Ed. VII. c. 3 ; Saskatchewan 1909, 
 R. S. S. c. 45 ; North-West Territories, Ordinances of N. W. T. 1911, 
 c. 47, and s!ee R, S. C. 1906, c. 62, s. 12. 
 
 2 Ex parte Jones in re Grissell (1879), 12 Ch. D. 484; 48 L. J- 
 Bank 109; Re Frances Handford & Co. (1899), 1 Q. B. 566; 68 
 L. J. Q. B. 386 ; 6 Mans. 131. In England it has been held that although 
 judgment has 'been obtained against a woman whi^e single, she is not 
 subject to the bankruptcy laws if she marries before the receiving order 
 is made, and is 1 not carrying on a trade: In re and ex parte a Dehtor 
 (1898), 2 Q. B. 576; 67 L. J. Q. B. 820; 5 Mans. 122. Compare section 
 75 and 2 (v) with the English Act 1914, 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 59, s. 125 
 (1), (2) ; and see In re Gardiner ex parte Coulson (1887), 20 Q. B. D- 
 249 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 149 ; 5 Mor. 1. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 59 
 
 section reads " 'judgment' or 'execution' or 'attach- Section 2(0) 
 ment' shall have operation a&if by law the liability of 
 married women thereon and thereunder were personal 
 as well as proprietory 3 . ' ' 
 
 As to status of Indians, see The Indian Act, Indians. 
 R. S. C. 1906, c. 81, especially sections 38-43, 102-106. 
 
 In dealing with the matter of lunatics, two ques- Lunatics, 
 tions present themselves, first as to whether a lunatic 
 can commit an act of bankruptcy; second, as to 
 whether a lunatic can be adjudged bankrupt. 
 
 First, as to whether a lunatic can commit an act 
 of bankruptcy. It seems that under the English Act 
 a lunatic cannot commit an act of bankruptcy by omit- 
 ting to pay or give security*. But a person of un- 
 sound mind not being a lunatic so found by inquisi- 
 tion on obtaining his discharge from an asylum is 
 deemed to have recovered his sanity, and is able to 
 commit an act of bankruptcy notwithstanding that an 
 order is still in force appointing a receiver of his pro- 
 perty 5 . Where a person has been found lunatic by 
 inquisition, so long as the inquisition has not been 
 superseded he cannot even during a lucid interval exe- 
 cute a valid deed dealing with his property 6 . 
 
 As to the second question: The Courts have been 
 unwilling to decide whether a lunatic so found by 
 inquisition can be made a bankrupt against the will 
 of his committee 2 . A liquidation petition cannot be 
 signed by a next friend on behalf of a lunatic not so 
 
 3 As to married women generally see In re and ex> parte Morley, 
 Scott v. Morley, supra, and In re Gardiner ex parte Coulson, supra; 
 In re Lyn'es ex parte Lester (1893), 2 Q. B. 113; 62 L. J. Q. B. 372; 
 10 Mor. 124. As to a married, woman who is a creditor of her husband 
 see section 48. 
 
 1 Ex parte Stamp & Jones in re Spence (1846), De Gex. 345. 
 
 • In re Belton (1913) , 108 L. T. 344 ; 57 'Sol. J. 343, 29 T. L. R. 313. 
 See as to capacity to render himself liable for necessaries : In re Rhodes 
 (1890) . 44 Oh. D. 94 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 298. See as to pleading Imperial 
 Loan V. Stone (1892), 1 Q. B. 599 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 449. 
 
 'In re Walker (1905), 1 Ch. 160; 74 L. J Ch. 86; In re R. S. A. 
 (No. 1) (1901), 2 K. B. 32 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 475 ; 8 Mans. 164. 
 
 2 Per Phfflimore, J., In re Belton (1913), 108 L. T. 344, 345 ; 57 Sol. 
 J. 343; 29 T. L. R. 313; In re Farnham (No. 1) (1895), 2 Ch. 799; 
 64 L. J. Ch. 717; 3 Mans. 109; Ex parte Layton (1801), 6 Ves. 
 434; but see Anon. (1807), 13 Ves. 590. Sect'on 85 provides that for 
 all the purposes of the Act a lunatic may act by his committee or by the 
 guardian or curator of his property. 
 
60 
 
 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Where the 
 debtor is a 
 corporation 
 
 Section 2(0) found by inquisition 3 , but where it appears to be for 
 the benefit of a lunatic so found that he should be 
 made a bankrupt the Court has given leave to the com- 
 mittee in the name of the lunatic to file a declaration 
 of insolvency*. 
 
 Convicts. It has been held in England that in spite of sec- 
 
 tion 8 of the English Act, 33 & 34 Vic. c. 23, a convict 
 being liable to pay his debts after as well as before 
 conviction, he may be made a bankrupt upon an act 
 of bankruptcy committed- either before or after con- 
 viction 5 . 
 
 Where the debtor is a corporation The Winding-Up 
 Act is not to apply without leave of the' Court. For 
 the purpose of providing for rules having application 
 to corporations The Winding-Up Act is deemed part 
 of the Act 6 . In. cases of winding-up other than on 
 the ground of insolvency The Winding-Up Act will 
 still apply. The effect of the authorized assignment 
 and composition sections as applied to a corporation 
 have yet to be determined. Corporation does not 
 include building societies having a capital stock, nor 
 incorporated banks, savings banks, insurance com- 
 panies, trust companies, loan companies or railway 
 companies 7 . 
 
 Foreigner. The old law was that there could be no bankruptcy 
 
 of an alien unless some act had been done in England 
 or the debtor had come • to England 8 , and this prin- 
 ciple was affirmed in the House of Lords in 1901, in 
 the case of Cooke v. Vogeler Co. 9 , on the ground that 
 a territorial limitation must be given to the word 
 debtor as used in the Act of 1883. In view 'of that 
 decision the English section corresponding with sec- 
 tion 2(o) was passed, as well as a further section 4 
 (l)(d), which has not been reproduced in The Bank- 
 ruptcy Act 10 . 
 
 'Eos parte and in re Cohen (1879), L. E. 10 Oh. D. 183, 184. 
 
 l In re James (a lunatic) (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 332; 53 L. J. Q. B. 
 575 ; In re Lee (1883), 23 Oh. D. 216, and see Anon., supra. Contrast 
 per Willes, C.J., Crispe V. Perritt (1744), Willes 467, 473. 
 
 >Ex parte Graves re Harris (1881), 19 Ch. D. 1, 51 L. J. Oh. 1. 
 
 8 See section 66 and Rules 13, 32, 82, 122 to 130. 
 
 ' See section 2(7c) . 
 
 'Bird v. Sidgwich (1692), 1 Salt. 110. 
 
 ' (1901) A. C. 102; 70 L. J. K. B. 181; '8 Mans. 113. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 61 
 
 The time when any act of bankruptcy or any auth- Section 2(0) 
 orized assignment was made means the actual time of Time when 
 the day". Judicial acts are usually referred to the? n£ S ctof ,. 
 first moment of the day, in this respect differing from was done, 
 acts of parties 1 . Acts of bankruptcy are defined . in 
 section 3. As to the making of an authorized assign- 
 ment, see sections 9 and 10. 
 
 The section distinguishes between the place where Ordinarily 
 a debtor ordinarily resided and his place of residence. resided - 
 Where a debtor "ordinarily resided" is a question 
 of fact 2 . It is possible to have an ordinary residence in 
 England and also an ordinary residence in Brussels. 
 The fact that a debtor who was not domiciled in Eng- 
 land had for eighteen months a room at an hotel in 
 London for which he paid continuously whether he 
 was there or not, pointed to an ordinary residence in ' 
 England 3 . 
 
 The phrase "place of residence" is broader than Place of 
 the phrase " dwelling house ", which appears in section resi enee ' 
 3(d). Five furnished rooms in a house may be a 
 "dwelling house" 4 . Where a house has been given 
 up and abandoned as a residence it. is no longer a 
 "dwelling house", even though the lease has not been 
 disposed of 5 . 
 
 A person continues to carry on his business so long Carrying on 
 as the debts he has incurred remain unpaid 6 . Similarly 
 a company is "doing business" in Canada, while unsat- 
 isfied obligations remain from business which had been 
 carried on and discontinued 7 . 
 
 11 In re Bumpus ex parte White (1908), 2 K. B. 330; 77 L. .T. K. B. 
 563; 15 Mans. 103; Thomas v. Desenges (1819), 2 B. & A. 586 ; Green 
 v. Lawrie (1847), 1 Ex. 335; 17 L. J. Ex. 61. 
 
 1 Clarke v. Bradlaugh (1881) , 8 Q. B. D. 63 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 1 ; Ed- 
 wards v. Reginam (1854), 9' Ex. R. 62S; Ex parte and in. re Pollard 
 (1903), 2 K.-B. 41 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 509 ; 10 Mans 152. 
 
 2 Ex parte and in re Charles Bright (1903) , 19 T. L. R. 203 C.A. 
 
 3 In re Norris ex parte Reynolds (1888), 5 Mor. Ill, contrast In re 
 and ex parte Erskine (1893) , 10 T. L. R. 32 ; see also Ext parte Creditors 
 in re A Debtor (1894), 14 T. L. R. 569; In re Charles Bright (1901), 
 18 T. L. R. 37. 
 
 'In re and ex pante Hecquard, 24 Q. B. D. 71 ; 6 Mor. 282. 
 
 °In re Norderifeldt ex parte M-orin (1895), 1 Q.-B. 151; 64 L. J. 
 Q. B. 182 ; 2 Mans. 20 C.A. . See also Ex parte Cunningham in re 
 Mitchell (1884), 13. Q. B. D. 418; 53 L. J.- Ch. 1067; 1 Mor. 137. 
 
 11 Ex parte Bamford (1808), 15 Ves. 449; In re Worsley (1901), 
 1 K. B. 309; 70 L. J. K. B. 92; 8 Mans. 8; In re Reynolds ex parte 
 White Bros. Ltd. (1915), 2 K. B. 186. See also section 2 (as). 
 
 7 Seott v. Hyde (1908) , Q. R. 18 K. B. 138. 
 
62 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Sections In re Barne, ex parte Bame*, it was- held that the 
 
 2(p) tp 2(r) onug j g on ^q petitioning creditor to prove the resi- 
 °r n oof° £ dence of the debtor, but if there is no reason to sup- 
 pose that the debtor will dispute this it is not neces- 
 sary in the first instance to adduce evidence on this 
 point. 
 
 "Discharge." 2 (p) "discharge" means the release of a bank- 
 rupt or authorized assignor from 'all his 
 debts provable in bankruptcy or under an 
 authorized assignment save such as are 
 excepted by this Act : 
 
 Cross References Act: Application for 58 ; power of court to 
 grant refuse, etc., 58(4) (5) ; facts on which refused 59; effect of 61; 
 annulment of adjudication 62. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Rules respecting 135 to 144. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Forms respecting 68 to 81. 
 
 "Gazetted." 2 (q) "gazetted" means published in the Can- 
 ada Gazette: 
 
 Cross References Act: Notice to be gazetted in certain cases: of 
 receiving order or making of A.A. 11(4) ; of appointment of new trustee 
 15(3) ; of order of discharge 61(5) ; of order annulling bankruptcy 
 62(3) ; notice to be evidence 77(3) (4). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. 167. 
 
 Note that "published" is not defined. Qmre, 
 whether in 11(14) (15) "published" includes "gazet- 
 ted". 
 
 "General 
 rules." 
 
 2 (r) "general rules" includes forms: 
 
 Cross References Act: Authority to make rules 66. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Non-compliance with rules not to render 
 proceedings void 146. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, g. 167. 
 
 8 (1886) 16 Q. B. D. 522 ; 3 Mor. 33, explaining Ex parte Cunning- 
 ham in re Mitchell (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 418; 53 L. J. Ch. 1067; 1 Mor. 
 137. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 63 
 
 2 (s) "goods" includes all chattels personal sections 
 and moveable property : 2(s) ' a(t) 
 
 "Goods." 
 Cross References Act: Removing or secreting is an act of bank- 
 ruptcy 3(#) ; bulk sale of may be act of bankruptcy 3(7i) ; debtor remov- 
 ing may be arrested 55(1) (6) (c) ; property defined 2 (dd) . 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s\ 167. 
 
 Chattels personal are strictly speaking, things chattels 
 movable, but in modern times the expression is used to P ersonal - 
 denote any kind of property other than real property 
 and chattels real 9 . Fixtures are not chattels personal 
 until severed from the land 10 . Leaseholds not being 
 chattels personal are not "goods" within the meaning 
 of the Act 1 ". Bills of exchange, promissory notes, and 
 money are chattels personal 2 . A" ship is a chattel per- • 
 sonal. 
 
 2 (t) "insolvent person" and "insolvent" in- "insolvent 
 elude a person, whether or not he has. done "Insolvent. ' 
 or suffered an act of bankruptcy, (*') who is 
 for any reason unable to meet his obligations 
 as they respectively become due, or (it) who 
 has ceased paying his current obligations in 
 the ordinary course of business, or (Hi) the 
 aggregate of whose property is not, at a fair 
 valuation, sufficient, or, if disposed of at a 
 fairly conducted sale under legal process 
 would not be sufficient, to enable payment of 
 all his obligations, due and accruing due, 
 thereout : 
 
 Cross References Act: Settlements avoided where settlor becomes 
 insolvent 29(1) ; insolvent person may make authorized' assignment 9 : or 
 composition 13(1) ; admission of insolvency is act of bankruptcy 3(f) ; 
 insolvent person and fraudulent preference 31. 
 
 'Halsbury, Laws of England, vol. xxii., s. 786. 
 10 Elwes v. M awe, S. L. C. 8th ed., vol. 11, p. 169 ; and see Chamber- 
 layne v. Collins (1894), 70 L. T. 217. 
 
 1 Richardson v. Webb (1884), 1 Mor. 40. 
 
 2 In re Goetz, Jonas & Co. ex parte The Trustee (1898). 1 Q. B. 
 787; 67 L. J. Q. B 577 ; 5 Mans. 76; Hornblower v. Proud, 2 B. & Aid. 
 327; In re Mill's Trusts (1895), 2 Oh. 564. 
 
64 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Sections 
 2(u), 2(v) 
 
 "Judge." 
 
 The definition here given removes some of the 
 . uncertainty of previous case law, which however will 
 be found useful in cases on the border line and in 
 matters affecting the rights of creditors which may 
 -arise under provincial acts, where The Bankruptcy 
 Act is silent. See on section 2(t)(i) Warnock v. 
 Kloepfer*; Sutherland v. Nixon 5 and Her see v. White*'. 
 Section 2(t)(iii), may be compared with the definition 
 given by Spragge, V.C., in Davidson v. Douglas 1 fol- 
 lowed in Empire Sash and Door Co. v. Marandcf; 
 Robinson v. McCauley 9 ; Richards & Brown, Ltd. v. 
 Leonoff 10 . It is only an insolvent person who may 
 make an authorized assignment or whose aonyey/ance, 
 transfer or charge may be impeached as a fraudu- 
 lent preference 1 . ' 
 
 2 (u) "judge" means a judge of the court 
 which is by this Act invested with original 
 jurisdiction in bankruptcy: 
 
 Cross References Act: As to courts 63; and judges 64. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Judge defined 2(1) ; all matters to be 
 heard in chambers 4 ; judge to regulate sittings 63. 
 
 , Analogous legislation: English Act, 1914, Rule 3. Ontario 
 Assignments and Preferences Act, 1914, c. .134, s. 2.. 
 
 "judgment." 
 "Execution." 
 "Attach- 
 ment." 
 
 2 (v) "judgment" or "execution" or "attach- 
 ment" shall have operation as if by law the 
 
 4 14 O. R. 288 ; 15 O. A. R. 324 ; 18 S. C. R. 701. : 
 
 6 (1862) 21 U. O. Q. B. 629, 633. 
 
 ° (1869) 29 TJ. C. Q. B. 232, 238, and see Hart v. Allen (1902), 40 
 N. S. R. 352. See where a debtor had not been able to pay taxes on real 
 estate, some parcels of which had been sold for taxes, Hodge v. McLean 
 and Union Bank of Canada (1919), 12 S. L. R. 298. 
 
 ' (1868) 15 Gr. 347. 
 
 8 (1911) 21 M. L. R. 605 ; 19 W. L. R. 78, where the previous cases 
 are reviewed. 
 
 9 (1913) 24 W. K R. 617 ; 13 D. L. R. 437. 
 
 10 (1915) 25 M. L. R. 548, and see Dominion Bank v. Cowan (1887), 
 14 O. R. 465. 466 ; Bertrand V. Canadian Rubier Co. (1897), 12 M. L. & 
 27. Contrast Rae v. McDonald (1887), 13 O. R. 352, 357, and see Wade 
 v. Elliott (1907), 11 O. W. R. 38; Casserley v. Hughes (1905), 5 
 O. W. R. 599; 6 O. W. R 70. As to the onus in partnership cases 
 where a return of nulla bona has been made against, firm property, see 
 Empire Sash & Door Co. v. Maranda, supra; Bank of Montreal v. Bto» 
 (1894), 9 M. L. R. 439. 
 
 1 See sections 9 and 31'. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 65 
 
 liability of married women thereon and sections 
 thereunder were personal as well as pro- 2(w) ' 2(x) 
 prietary : 
 
 Cross References Act: Effect of judgment against married woman 
 carrying on trade 75 ; receiving orders not to be within provincial statutes 
 with respect to judgments 11 (4) ; receiving order and authorized assign- 
 ments lose precedence to judgments 11(10) ; debtor 2(o). 
 
 As to whether every married woman against whom 
 a judgment is obtained becomes by reason of 2(f), 
 liable to be made a bankrupt, see notes to 2(o). 
 
 2 (w). "local newspaper" means a newspaper "Local 
 published in and having a circulation newspaper.' 
 throughout the bankruptcy district or divi- 
 sion which includes the locality of the debtor. 
 
 Cross References Act: Locality of a debtor' 2 (a?) ; bankruptcy 
 districts and divisions 64(5) ; publication 11(4) (5, 15(3) ; 61(5), 
 62(3), 77(3) (4), 
 
 This section was substituted for the previous one 
 by section 4 of The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 
 1921 2 . Publication in a local newspaper is not of such 
 importance under the Act as is gazetting in the 
 Canada Gazette. See sections 11(4) (5), 15(3), 61(5), 
 62(3), 77(3) (4). Consider, however, the effect of 
 11(14) (15). 
 
 2-(ic) "locality" of a debtor (whether a bank- "Locality.' 
 rupt, assignor or person who has proposed a 
 composition, extension or arrangement to or 
 with his creditors) means either the place 
 within a bankruptcy division or district 
 whereat the debtor has carried on business 
 at any time during the six months immedi- 
 
 2 The . previous section read: 2(w) "local newspaper" means 
 a newspaper published in and having a circulation throughout the bank- 
 ruptcy district or div'sion wherein the debtor has resided or carried 
 on business for the longest period during the six months immediately 
 preceding the date of the presentation against him .of a bankruptcy 
 pettion or the making by him of an authorized assignment. 
 
 B.O. — 5 
 
66 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 What is 
 parrying on 
 business. 
 
 section 2(x) . ately preceding the date of the presentation 
 
 against him of a bankruptcy petition or the 
 making by him of an authorized assignment, 
 or where the greater portion of the property 
 of such debtor is situate, or where the debtor 
 resides:" 
 
 Cross References Act: Petition to be presented to court having 
 jurisdict'on in locality o>£. debtor. 4(4) ; proceedings not invalidated by 
 being taken in wrong court 4(11) ; authorized assignment to be made to 
 trustee with authority in the locality of the debtor 9 ; " province of the 
 debtor's locality" 6(4); debtor is defined 2(o) ; bankruptcy districts 
 and divisions 64(5). 
 
 This section was substituted for the previous one 
 
 by section 3 of The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 
 
 . 1920 3 . It will be noticed that any one of three places 
 
 may be the "locality" of the debtor. The previous 
 
 section mentioned only two. 
 
 A clerk in a bank is carrying on business. He does 
 not have to be a principal 4 . The words "residence" 
 and "business" have no definite technical meaning. 
 The object of the rule is that proceedings shall be 
 taken in the natural forum of a debtor 5 . A company 
 or firm carries on business . where its administrative 
 business is carried on 6 , and not where an agent car- 
 ries on business on behalf of the firm 7 . 
 Partners. Semble, where a partnership is insolvent and the 
 
 partners are living in a "locality" other than that 
 of the partnership, the assignment of the partnership 
 assets should be made to a trustee with authority in 
 
 8 The previous section read : — 2. (x) " locality " of a debtor (whether 
 a bankrupt, assignor or person who has proposed a composition, extension 
 or arrangement to or with his creditors) means the place within a bank- 
 ruptcy division or district whereat the debtor has carried on business for 
 the' longest period during the six months immediately preceding the date 
 of the presentation, against him of a bankruptcy petition or the making 
 by him of an authorized assignment, or where the greater portion of tne 
 property of such debtor is situate. 
 
 * Ex parte Breull in re Bowie, 1880, 16 Ch. D. 484 ; 50 L. J. Oh. «*. 
 distinguish Graham v. Lewis (1888) , 22 Q. B. D. 1 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 117; 
 and In re Charles Bright (1901), 18 T. L. R. 37, 38. 
 
 5 Ecu parte Breull in re Bowie, supra. 
 
 ' he Tailleur v. The South Eastern Railway Co. 1877) , 3 C. V. U. 
 18; In re Brown v. L. N. W. Ry. Co. (1863), 4 B. & S. 326; Em parte 
 and in re Sharpe, 1879, W. N. 14. 
 
 ■< Ea> parte and in re Charles, 1872, 'L. It. 13 Eq. 638; 41 U J. 
 Bank. 43. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 67 
 
 the locality in which is the chief place of business of Sections 
 the partnership 8 . a(y)to2(aa) 
 
 2 (y) "oath" includes affirmation and statutory "Oath." 
 declaration : 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, 6*. 167. 
 
 2 (0) "ordinary resolution" means a resolution "Ordinary 
 
 carried in manner provided by subsection 
 fourteen of section f orty : two of this Act : 
 
 Cross References Act: needed for transfer of proceedings 6(4) ; 
 resolution means ordinary resolution 2(ff) ; special resolution defined 
 2(«) ; compare 13(3), 15(1). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, a*. 167. 
 
 resolution.' 
 
 2 (aa) "person" includes a firm or partnership, "Person.' 
 an unincorporated association of persons, a 
 corporation as restrictively denned by this 
 section, a body corporate and politic, the suc- 
 cessors of such association, partnership, cor- 
 poration, or body corporate and politic, and 
 the heirs, executors, administrators or other 
 legal representatives of a person, according 
 to the law of that part of Canada to which 
 the context extends. 
 
 Cross References Act: Corporation defined 2(t) ; limited 
 partnerships 76 ; infants, married women, Indians, convicts and lunatics ; 
 see notes to 2(o). 
 
 This section was substituted for the previous one 
 by section 5 of the Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 
 1921 1 . Corporation as defined in section 2(k) does not 
 include incorporated banks, savings banks, insurance 
 companies, trust companies, loan companies or railway 
 companies. The amendment made in 1921 raises the 
 question whether "person" bears the same meaning 
 
 'In re McKenzie (1871), 31 TJ. O. Q. B. 1. 
 
 "The previous section read: 2(aa) "person" includes corpora- 
 tion and partnership. 
 
68 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 sections throughout the Act. If so, the • effect of the amend- 
 2(bb)to2(dd) meKt | g to p reven j; trusf . companies being appointed 
 authorized trustees. See section 14. Person is defined 
 inE. S. C. 1906, c. 1, s. 34(20). 
 
 "Petition." 2 (bb) "petition" means petition in bank- 
 
 ruptcy ; 
 
 Cross References Act: Generally 4 ; dismissed 68. 
 Cross References Rules: Generally 74 to 84, 87 to 91. 
 Cross References Forms: Generally 2 to 13. 
 
 "Prescribed." 2 (ce) " prescribed" means prescribed by Gen- 
 eral Rules within the meaning of this Act; 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, g. 167. 
 
 "Property." 2 (dd) "property" includes money, goods, 
 things in action, land, and every description 
 of property, whether real or personal, mov- 
 able or immovable, legal or equitable, and 
 whether situate in Canada or elsewhere; 
 also obligations, easements and every de- 
 scription of estate, interest and profit, pre- 
 sent or future, vested or contingent, in, 
 arising out of, or incident to property as 
 above defined ; 
 
 Cross References Act: Goods are defined 2(s) ; property vesting 
 in the trustee 6(3), 10, 15(3) ; property divisible among creditors 25; 
 vesting of property on annulment of adjudication 62(2) ; after-acquired 
 property 58(4) (5) (d) ; and generally, see index. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, g. 167. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Property generally. 
 
 Things in action. 
 
 Extra territorial operation of Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 Real or immovable property. 
 
 Personal or movable property. 
 
 Effect of acts which purport to pass property wheresoever situate. 
 
 Rule for trustee. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 69 
 
 Law within the Empire. Section 2(dd) 
 
 Effect of English bankruptcy on real and personal property in 
 
 Canada. . 
 Effect of Canadian bankruptcy on property abroad. 
 All British Bankruptcy Courts 1 are to be auxiliary to one another. 
 
 This section obtains its importance from section 25 Property 
 which defines what property of the bankrupt passes generaIIy ' 
 to the trustee. -The word "property" as used in 
 section 2{dd), is wide enough to include matters for 
 which no suit can be brought,' such as the pension of a 
 retired Judge of a Crown Colony . It will include the 
 right to money standing to the credit of the debtor in 
 a bank 10 , but not money paid into court to abide the 
 event of an action then pending 1 . The property in bills 
 deposited with a banker and properly discounted by 
 him passes to his trustee in bankruptcy; but not if 
 the bills were improperly discounted 2 . Property will 
 include trade fixtures, which by the terms of the lease 
 the bankrupt lessee may sever from the land at the 
 conclusion of the term 3 . A publican's license, which 
 in England is a personal license to the individual 
 occupying the premises, does not pass to the trustee 4 . 
 
 The modern tendency is to use the phrase, choses Things in 
 in action, as including all personal chattels that are actlon ' 
 not in possession, that is such as could not be the 
 subject of larceny because they could not be seized". 
 The following are examples of things in action which 
 pass to the trustee : the right of a lessee to be relieved 
 
 'Ex parte and in re Huggins (1882) , 21 Ch. t>. 8.5 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 935, 
 and see as to the annual payment to members of parliament, Hollinshead 
 v. Hanleton (1916), A. C. 428. Contrast the difference between an 
 attaching order which does not transfer to the garnishor any property in 
 the debt attached :Rat Portage Lumber Co. v. Marty (1917), 40 O. L. R. 
 322, and the effect of the making of a receiving order which vests the 
 property of the debtor in the trustee. See section 6(3). 
 
 10 Note that the trustee is entitled to be paid such money without 
 production of the deposit receipt: Bank of Montreal v. Little (1870), 
 17 Gr. 313. 
 
 1 Ex parte Banner in re Keyuxirth (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 379 ; 30 L. T. 
 N. S. 620, and see notes to section 2 (gg) "secured creditor," and to 
 section 11(1). 
 
 2 Ex parte Frere in re Sykes (1829). 1 Montague & McArthur 263. 
 'In re Eslick ex parte Alexander (1876), 4 Ch. D. 503. 
 
 *Ex parte Royle in re Britnor (1877), 46 L. J. Bank 85 ; 25 W. R. 
 560; and see In re O'Brien (1883), 11 Ir. L. R. 213. 
 
 5 Per Blackburn, L.J., in Colonial Bank v. WMnney (1886) , 11 A. C. 
 426; 56 L. J. Ch 43; 55 L. T. 362; 34 W. R. 705; 3 Mor. 207; see also 
 notes to section 25. 
 
70 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section a(da) of a forfeiture of a lease 8 ; shares in an incorporated 
 company transferable only by deed 7 ; an interest in 
 shares which are already subject to a mortgage 8 ; a de- 
 benture 9 ; the share of a partner in partnership assets 10 • 
 a policy of life insurance* 1 ; the right of an agent to be 
 paid a commission on the sale of property where the 
 sale was negotiated by the agent prior to the adjudica- 
 tion of bankruptcy, even though no money was payable 
 to the agent unless and until the purchaser should 
 carry through the contract and pay the money 1 . Where 
 a testator gave his wife the right of possession and 
 enjoyment of all his pictures during her life and 
 subject as aforesaid bequeathed to his son all the pic- 
 tures for his sole use and benefit, the interest of the 
 son in the chattels being an executory bequest which 
 created no present or vested interest, and which if the 
 , mother survived him would never come into opera- 
 
 tion, was a chose-in-action 2 . Rights of action which 
 pass to the trustee are fully discussed in the notes to 
 section 25. 
 
 The Act purports to deal with property "whether 
 
 'Howard v^Fanshawe (1895), 2 Ch. 589. 
 
 ' Colonial Bank v. Whinney (1886), 11 A. C. 426; 56 L. J. Ch. 43; 
 55 L. T. 362 ; 34 W. R. 705 ; 3 Mor. 207 ; contrast Ex parte Union Bank 
 of Manchester, In re Jackson (1871), L. R. 12 Eg. 354. In Colonial 
 Bank v. WMnney, supra, the decision was on section 44(m) of (1883) 
 46 & 47 Vic. c. 52, the " order and disposition " section. 
 
 'Ea> parte Barry re Fox (1873), L. R. 17 Eq. 113; 43 h. J. Bank 
 18 ; 29 L. T. 620 ; 22 W. R. 205. 
 
 "Ex parte Rensburg in re Pryce (1877), L. R. 4 Ch. D. 685; 36 
 L. T. 117 ; 25 W. R. 432. 
 
 10 Ex parte Fletcher re Bambridqe (1878), 8 Oh. D. 218; 47 L. J, 
 Bank 70 ; 26 W. R. 439 ; 38 L. T. 229. 
 
 11 Ex parte Ibbetson m re Moore (1878), 8 Ch. D. 519; 39 L. T. 
 1 ; 26 W. R. 843. 
 
 1 In re Byrne ex parte Benry (1892), 67 I/. T. 230; 9 Mor. 213. 
 Note that where the bankrupt has not completed his portion of the con- 
 tract, the 1 trustee can complete the work and sue the party for whom the 
 work is done: In re Worthington ex parte Path4 Freres (1914), 2 K. B. 
 299 ; 83 L. J. K. B. 886 ; 110 L. T. 43, 599 ; 58 Sol. J. 252 ; 21 Mans. 
 119; unless some personal qualification of the bankrupt is of the essence of 
 the contract: Drew v. Josolyne (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 590; Tooth v. Hallett 
 (1869) , L. R. 4 Ch. 242 ; 38 L. J. Oh. 396 ; 20 L. T. 155 ; 17 W. R. 423; 
 in which case if the bankrupt completes the contract as agent for the 
 trustee the trustee can. sue: Whitmore v. QUmour (1845), 12 M. & "• 
 808 ; and see further as to contracts for personal services notes to sec- 
 v tion 25(5). 
 
 'Ex parte Singleton in re Tritton (1889), 61 L. T. 301 ; 6 Mor. 280. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 71 
 
 situate in Canada or elsewhere," thus following the Section 2(dd) 
 present English Act 3 . Prior to the English Act of Extra- 
 1883, there was no legislative attempt made to vest operation of 
 in the trustee the property of the bankrupt situate Bankruptcy 
 outside tne British Empire* Under these circum- 
 stances foreign courts, on whose decision in the last 
 analysis the rights of the trustee largely depend, 
 applied to the determination of the question as to 
 what property outside the forum passes on bank- 
 ruptcy, certain rules of private international law 
 developed at a time when no legislature claimed to give 
 extra-territorial effect to a bankruptcy which took 
 place within its jurisdiction 5 . Those rules so devel- 
 oped may be summarized with respect to real and 
 personal property as follows : 
 
 Generally it was held throughout the civilized world Real or 
 that the involuntary or statutory conveyance to the ™operty. le 
 trustee of the bankrupt did not give him a legal title 
 to immovable property situate in the foreign juris- 
 diction 6 . In some cases it was held he got no title at 
 all, as the statute was interpreted as not intending to 
 operate beyond the territorial limits of the State 
 which enacted it; in other cases it was held that as 
 between trustee and bankrupt an equitable title had 
 
 a The discussion which follows does not touch the question of the 
 competence of the Dominion Parliament to pass legislation with extra- 
 territorial effect. 
 
 *See Callender, Sylees & Co. v. Colonial Secretary of Lagos (1891), 
 A. C. 460, where the English Legislation is reviewed. In the case of 
 legislation by the Canadian Parliament as there are no dominions or 
 colonies' over which that Parliament may competently legislate, it is 
 difficult to see what intermediate meaning could be given to cut down 
 the generality of the words " or elsewhere." See also Ex parte Blain 
 re Sawers (1879), 12 Ch. D. 523; and In re and ex> parte Pearson 
 C1892), 2 Q. B. 263; 61 L. J. Q. B. 585; 9 Mor. 185; in view of which 
 cases section 1(2) of the English Act (1914), 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 59, was 
 passed. See Macdonald v. Georgian Bay Lumber Co. (1878), 2 S. C. R. 
 364. 
 
 5 See for a valuable review of Canadian decisions, Lafleur Conflict of 
 Laws, Theoret, Montreal, 1898, c. 18. 
 
 * In England it has been held that real estate or immovable property 
 is exclusively subject to the laws of the government within whose terri- 
 tory it is situate. Story, Conflict of Laws, 8th edition (1883), s. 428, 
 citing Sill v. Worswick, 1 H. Bl. 665 ; Hunter v. Potts, 4 T. R. 182 ; 
 Phillips v. Hunter, 2 H. Bl. 402 ; Selkrig v. Davis, 2 Rose, 291 ; 2 Dow 
 230 ; Coffin v. Coffin, 2 P. Wms. 290, 293 ; Brodie v. Barry, 2 V. & B. 
 130 ; Birtwhistle v. VardUl, 5 B. & C. 438 ; 2 Bell Com. 690. 
 
72 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 2(dd) been given which on compliance with local regulations 
 — could be turned into a legal title 7 . 
 
 mov S abit lor ^ * s a c ^ eav proposition not only by the law of 
 property. England, but by. that of every civilized country in the 
 world, that voluntary transfers of personal' property 
 follow the law of the person or domicil 8 . But with 
 respect to the effect .of involuntary transfers under 
 bankruptcy laws of personal property there is differ- 
 ence of opinion. 
 
 It seems that in all jurisdictions, even in those of 
 the United States 9 ; the effect of a statutory convey- 
 ance to a trustee under a foreign bankruptcy, in the 
 domicil of the debtor, will as between the bankrupt and 
 the trustee, entitle the trustee to the property. In 
 England, the title of the foreign trustee or syndic is 
 recognized as a legal title "sufficient to defeat attach- 
 ments made after the title passed to the trustee 10 . In 
 some continental countries the title is nearer the equi- 
 
 7 See Story, Conflict of Laws, 8th edition, 1383, chap. X. Real Pro- 
 perty, and sec. 428. Foote, Private International Jurisprudence, 3rd 
 edition, 1904, pp. 227-230. 
 
 8 See per Loughborough, L.J., in Sill v., TVomoicfe, 1 H. Bl. 690; 
 Birtwhistle v. Vardill, 5 B. & C. 438, 581. 
 
 9 Story, S. C, sees. 420, 421. 
 
 10 The English law with respect to involuntary transfers of personal 
 property is stated thus by Story, Conflict of Laws, 8th ed., 1883, sec. 
 409. 
 
 1st. An assignment under the bankruptcy law of a foreign country 
 passes all the personal property of the bankrupt locally situate, and debts 
 owing in England (even though the English trustee ,was the first to 
 discover the personalty and to claim it : In re Anderson (1911) , 1 K. B. 
 396; 80 L. J. K. B. 919; 18 Mans. 216). 
 
 2nd. That an attachment of such property by an English creditor 
 after such bankruptcy with or without notice to him is invalid to over- 
 reach the assignment. 
 
 3rd. That in England the same doctrine holds under assignments by 
 her own bankruptcy laws as to personal property and debts of the bank- 
 rupt in foreign countries. 
 
 4th. That upon principle all attachments made by foreign creditors 
 after such assignment in a foreign country ought to be held invalid. 
 
 5th. That at all events a British creditor will not be permitted to 
 hold the property acquired by a judgment under any attachment made in 
 a foreign country after such attachment. 
 
 6th. That a foreign creditor not subject to British laws will be 
 permitted to retain any such property acquired under any such judgment 
 if the local laws (however incorrect on principle) confer on him an 
 absolute title.. 
 
 And see Poote, Private" International Jurisprudence, pp. 318-331, 
 3rd edition, 1904. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 73 
 
 valent of an equitable title 11 . Although it is difficult to Section2(dd) 
 get any clear line from the many cases in the United 
 States the decisions there do not in the main follow 
 the English Rule 1 . 
 
 Whether in view of the clear words of the English Effect of 
 and Canadian Acts, effect will be given by courts out- purport to 
 side the Empire to the intention so expressed remains ptrty Pr °~ 
 to be seen. As the activities of traders become more and ^tuate° ever 
 more international the convenience of a system which 
 recognizes one forum for the transfer of title may 
 be increasingly recognized. Effect can be given to such 
 an intention, even ^though compliance with the form- 
 alities of local laws is insisted on. Certainly it seems 
 that in countries which claim the right to transfer 
 property wherever situate the title of a trustee in 
 
 11 The law in force in France and Holland may be stated as follows : 
 1. The law of the domicil may rightfully divest the debtor of the admin- 
 istration of his property and place it under the administration of assignees 
 or syndics. 2. Debts of an inhabitant against a foreigner are deemed 
 part of his movable property and have their locality in the place of 
 domicil of the creditor ; though a purchaser from a bankrupt in a foreign 
 country of property there locally situate would be entitled to hold it 
 against the assignee if. at the time he had no knowledge of any bank- 
 ruptcy or of any intent to defraud creditors. See Story, Conflict of 
 Laws, 7th edition, sec. 417 ; citing Merlin, Repertoire, Paillite et Banque- 
 route, sees. 2, 3, art. 10, p. 412. 
 
 1 The conclusion of Story, S.C., sees. 410-421, is that in the United 
 States statutable assignments as distinguished from voluntary assign- 
 ments operate intra-territorially only where the conflict is between local 
 creditors and the foreign assignee. Thus it has been held in Massachu- 
 setts, Blake v. Williams (1828), 6 Pick. (Mass.) 285, that an assign- 
 ment by commissioners of bankruptcy in a foreign country does not 
 operate a legal transfer of the bankrupt's property in the State as against 
 a creditor of the bankrupt. It was even said in one case, Remsden v. 
 Holmes (1822) , 20 Johns N. T. 229, at 267, that after a commission and 
 assignment in England the bankrupt could not voluntarily make a con- 
 firmatory conveyance in aid of the commission, on the ground that with 
 respect to his property he was to be treated as civilly dead. See observa- 
 tions of Story, S. C, sec. 418, on this case. It has been held in the 
 United States that the title of the trustee under the national Bankruptcy 
 Act does not extend to property in foreign countries : Qakley v. Bennett, 
 11 How (U.S.) 33; Philps v. McDonald, 16 Nat. Bank. Keg. 217; 
 Barnett v. Poole, 23 Tex. 217, and under the respective state insolvency 
 laws the trustee takes only such property as has its situs within the 
 jurisdiction of the Court in which the proceedings are pending : Betton v. 
 Valentine, 1 Curt. (U.S.) 168; Security Trust Co. v. Dodd, 173 U. S. 
 624; Osoorne v. Adams, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 245, and even the title so 
 acquired is subordinate to the claims of creditors in other jurisdictions 
 who have seized the property under attachments : The Watchman, Ware. 
 (U.S.) 232 ; Felch v. Bugbee, 48 Me. 9 ; Beer v. Hooper, 32 Miss. 246 ; 
 Dunlap v. Rogers, 47 N. H. 281. 
 
74 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 2(dd) 
 
 Rule for 
 trustee. 
 
 Law within 
 the Empire. 
 
 Effect of 
 
 English 
 
 bankruptcy 
 
 on real and 
 
 personal 
 
 property in 
 
 Canada. 
 
 another country which claims the same right should 
 be recognized. 
 
 Until the law on this matter is established the only 
 safe rule for the trustee in the case both of real and 
 of personal property is to exercise diligence in all 
 foreign jurisdictions in which he has reason to believe 
 from the business, books and travels of the debtor, 
 that the debtor has property; and by compliance with 
 local laws to endeavour to perfect his title in those 
 countries 2 . The trustee should not overlook the pro- 
 visions of section 55(4) and (5) of the Act, under 
 which he has the right to call on the debtor to perfect 
 for him the title given by statute 3 . 
 
 The situation within the Empire is on a different 
 footing from, that without it. The English, Scotch and 
 Irish Bankruptcy Acts apply to all parts of the 
 Empire; and the Parliaments of the various Domin- 
 ions have passed Acts following the language of the 
 English Act purporting to convey property whereso- 
 ever situate. 
 
 First as to the effect of an English bankruptcy in 
 Canada. The law on this subject has-been most clearly 
 expounded by the learned Chief Justice of the King's 
 Bench of Manitoba, in a judgment covering all the 
 authorities 4 . It was there laid down that: — 
 
 (1) An adjudication of bankruptcy by an English 
 Court on a domiciled Englishman passed to the trus- 
 tee all the property, real and personal, of the bankrupt 
 situate in Canada; 
 
 '' A distinction should be made between the effect of adjudications of 
 bankruptcy in actually transferring title to property and their effect in 
 giving the trustee a right by complying with the local law to establish a 
 good title. -See In re Levy's Trusts (1885), 30 Ch. D. 119; 54 L. J. Ch. 
 968; Waite v. Bimgley (1882), 21 Ch. D. 674; 51 L. J. Ch. 651, and 
 Dulaney v. Merry & Son (1901), 1 K. B. 536; 70 L. J. K. B. 377; 
 8 Mans. 152 ; Ex parte Rogers in re Boustead, 16 Ch. D. 665 ; Callender, 
 Sykes & Co. v. Colonial Secretary of Lagos (1891), A. C. 460. See the 
 provisions of sections 6(3), 11(4). 
 
 ' The Court may direct a creditor who has obtained property of the 
 debtor in a foreign jurisdiction to hand it over to the trustee: Hunter v. 
 Potts (1791), -4 T. R. 182; affd. sub nam. Phillips v. Hunter (1795), 
 2 H. Bl. R. 402; Roe v. Smith (1868), 15 Gr. 344. 
 
 1 In re Eades Estate (1917), 33 D. L. R. 335; 2 W. W. R. 65. See 
 further Powis v. Quebec Bank (1893), 2 Q. R. (Q. B.) 566; Canaiim 
 Lumbering and Timbering Co. v. Grant (1887), 12 P. R. 301; and see 
 notes to section 61(2) for the effect of a foreign discharge. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 75 
 
 (2) That the same adjudication passed to the trus- Section2(dd) 
 tee all property, real and personal, acquired by the 
 bankrupt after adjudication, and prior to discharge, 
 whether acquired in Canada or England; 
 
 (3) That the adjudication would not pass, property, 
 real or personal, acquired by the bankrupt after he 
 had lost his English domicil and acquired a Canadian 
 domicil. 
 
 In connection with the third point it should be 
 borne in mind that when the facts occurred on which 
 this judgment was delivered: (a) the English Act 
 (that of 1883), did not permit a petition to be pre- 
 sented unless the person was (1) domiciled in Eng- 
 land, or (2) within a year before the presentation of 
 the petition had ordinarily resided, or (3) had a dwell- 
 ing house, or (4) place of business in England. 
 
 (b) There was no Canadian Bankruptcy Act in 
 force. There was therefore no argument on the 
 ground of reciprocal comity. 
 
 Secondly, as to the effect of a Canadian bankruptcy Effect of 
 on real or personal property situate in England, or bankruptcy 
 in other parts of the Empire, whose bankruptcy Acts abroad! erty 
 purport to pass property, real and personal, whereso- 
 ever situate, it, is suggested that courts of a country 
 whose legislature purports to pass property in other 
 countries cannot well refuse to apply a rule of comity 
 which will give effect to the Canadian law, subject, of 
 course, to the requirements of local laws with respect 
 to technicalities of transfer 5 . 
 
 "See In re Anderson (1911), 1 K. B. 896; 80 L. J. K. B. 919; 
 18 Mans. 216; see under the law as it then existed In re Levy's Trusts 
 (1885), 30 Ch. D. 119, 123, and see generally Ex parte Blain in re 
 Sawers (1879) , 12 Ch. D. 522 ; Cooke v. Vogeler Co. (1901) , A. C. 102 ; 
 70 L. J. Q. B. 181; 8 Mans. 113; In re and ex parte Pearson (1892), 
 2 Q. B. 263 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 585 ; 9 Mor. 185 ; In re and ex parte Crispin, 
 L. K. 8 Ch. 374; 42 L. J. Bank. 65; In re Eades Estate (1917), 33 
 D. L. R. 335 ; 2 W. W. R. 65. For a valuable discussion of the subject, 
 see Foreign Judgments and Jurisdiction, vol. III., Piggott, 1910, Butter- 
 worth & Co. In some cases concurrent proceedings in the two jurisdic- 
 tions may be a convenience. Thus where there were bankruptcy pro- 
 ceedings in England and Madras respecting the same firm the English 
 Court sanctioned a scheme under which the proceedings in England and 
 Madras should be continued concurrently and the assets pooled and dis- 
 tributed rateably amongst all the creditors whose proofs should be 
 admitted in each jurisdiction : In re MacFadyen & Co. ex parte Viziana- 
 
76 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Sections Section 122 of the present English Bankruptcy Act 
 
 2 (ee) ' 2(ff) (1914), 4 & 5 Geo. V., c. 59, should not be overlooked. 
 ah British it reads:— 
 
 bankruptcy 
 
 courts are to "The High Court, the county courts, the 
 
 to one courts having jurisdiction in bankruptcy in Scot- 
 
 another. ^ n d an( j i re i an( }, an( j every British' Court else- 
 
 . where having jurisdiction in bankruptcy or insol- 
 vency, and the officers of those courts respectively, 
 shall severally act in aid of and be auxiliary to each 
 other in all matters of bankruptcy, and an order 
 of the court seeking aid, with a request to another 
 of the said courts, shall be deemed sufficient to en- 
 able the latter court to exercise in regard to the 
 matters directed by the order, such jurisdiction as 
 either the court which made the request, or the 
 court to which the requeslt is made, could exercise 
 in regard to similar matters within their respective 
 jurisdictions." 
 
 "Registrar." 2 (ee) "registrar" includes any other officer 
 who performs duties like to those of a regis- 
 trar : 
 
 Cross References Act: Jurisdiction of 65 ; appointed by Chief 
 Justice 64(4) ; to keep copies of Canada Gazette 11(5) ; fee for search 
 11(6) ; affidavit may be sworn before 11(12) ; to file receiving orders and 
 authorized assignments 11(11) ; penalties for non-compliance 11(13) ; to 
 give notice to trustee of application for discharge 58(2). 
 
 Cross References Rules: Defined 2(1) ; jurisdiction of 5; may 
 adjourn to be heard by a judge 6 ; any registrar may act for any other 64 ; 
 proceedings to be filed with 7(2) ; security given to registrar 21(2); 
 orders to be settled by 20 ; penalty for officers refusing to act 66 ; appeal 
 from registrar 67 ; approves deposit in lieu of bond 23. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, Rule 3. 
 
 See In re X, (1921) 1 C. B. E. 459 (Holmested, R). 
 
 "Resoiu- 2 (//) "resolution" means ordinary resolution: 
 
 Cross References Act: Ordinary resolution defined 2(z), 42(14) ; 
 special resolution defined 2(ii). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, g. 167. 
 
 grpm Mining Co. (1908), 1 K. B. 675; 77 L. J. K. B. 319; 52 Sol. J. 
 226 ; 15 Mans. 28 ; and see In re Artola Hermanos ex parte Andre Chale 
 (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 640; 59 L. J. Q. B. 254; 7 Mor. 80. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 77 
 
 2 (gg) "secured creditor" means a person hold- section g(gg) 
 ing a mortgage, hypothec, pledge, charge, "Secure^ 
 lien or privilege on or against the property credltor -" 
 of the debtor, or any part thereof, as secu- 
 rity for a debt due or accruing due to him 
 from the debtor; 
 
 Cross References Act: Rights of secured creditors saved 6(1), 
 10, but see 11(1) (10) (16) ; inspection and redemption of goods in pledge 
 22(2) ; right to dividends 46; right to vote 42(10) (11) (15) (16) ; proof 
 by 42(10) (11) (16), 45(5) ; creditor denned 2(m) ; priority of claims 51 ; 
 rights of landlord 52. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Creditor defined 2(1). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act. 1914, s. 167; Ontario 
 Assignments and Preferences Act, R. S. O. 1914, c. I'M, s. 25(5). 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Importance of the section. 
 
 Cases outside the section. 
 
 Security must be on the property of the debtor. 
 
 Bills of exchange. 
 
 Purchaser of property not a secured creditor. 
 
 Mortgage. 
 
 Charge on existing property. 
 
 Sequestration. 
 
 Attachment. 
 
 Receiver. 
 
 Money paid into Court. 
 
 Charge on future property and license to seize. 
 
 Assignment of future chattels. 
 
 Assignment of future receipts and debts. 
 
 Lien. 
 
 Specific liens. 
 
 General liens — 
 
 Factor's lien. 
 
 Banker's lien. 
 
 Solicitor's lien. 
 
 General liens by agreement. 
 
 Rights under general lien. 
 Equitable liens. 
 
 Conditions on which liens attach. 
 Loss of lien. 
 
 Authorization to sell property. 
 Marshalling. 
 " From the debtor." 
 
 The definition in this section obtains its import- importance 
 
 of the 
 section. 
 
 ance from section 46, which prevents "secured credi- ol [ 
 
 tors" from proving for the full amount of their debt 
 without either valuing their security or surrendering 
 it. If, therefore, a creditor holds security, but is not 
 within the definition of a secured creditor given in 
 
78 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 2(gg) section 2(gg), he may retain his security, and prove for 
 the full amount of his dejbt. 
 
 Cases out- The words in 2(gg) exclude a personal obligation 
 
 Section! to m ake a security effectual, as they exclude a per- 
 sonal obligation to give a security 6 , but the obligee 
 may be a secured creditor if the transaction is such as 
 to create a trust or charge 7 , as where there is in addi- 
 tion to the covenant to give a security an equitable de- 
 posit of title deeds 8 , or the deposit of an unendorsed 
 bill by way of security . A creditor who has obtained 
 judgment for specific performance is not a secured 
 creditor 10 , nor it has been said is^a landlord by reason of 
 his power of distress 1 , nor is an executor by reason 
 of his right of retainer 2 , but a judgment creditor who 
 redeems in foreclosure proceedings may become a 
 secured creditor 3 . 
 
 Security It will be noted that in order to make the creditor 
 
 must be on -, -, . , , , . ■, ■. • , 
 
 the property a secured creditor, the mortgage charge or lien must 
 of the debtor, -j^ on ^ p ro p er t,y f the debtor 4 . Therefore a credi- 
 tor who holds no security on the property of the 
 debtor, but whose debt is guaranteed by a third party 
 or secured by a charge on the property of a third 
 party is not a ' ' secured creditor ' ' within the Act ; the 
 principle being that a creditor is not allowed to prove 
 against a bankrupt's estate and. retain a security 
 . which, if given up, would go to augment the estate 
 
 e Deering v. Bank of Ireland (1887), 12 A. C. 20, 26. 
 
 7 Bank of Scotland v. MacLeod (1914), A. C. 311; 83 L. J. P. 0. 
 250 ; 110 L. T. 946. 
 
 "Ex parte Holthausen in re Scheibler (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 722; 
 44 L. J. Bank. 26. 
 
 9 Ex parte Rhodes in re Dean (1837) , 2 Dea. 364. In this case 
 there being no question of a fraudulent preference the bankrupt was 
 ordered to endorse the bill for the secured creditor. Where the note is 
 for a greater amount than the debt the title to the note passes to the 
 trustee : Ex parte Brown in re Salisbury (1S24) , 1 G. & J. 407 ; and see 
 as to formal acts only which require to be done: Watkins v. MmU 
 (1820), 2 Jacob & Walker, 237, 243. 
 
 "ft parte Clarke in re Burr (1892), W. N. 138. 
 
 1 Per Jessell, M.R., in Thomas v. Patent Lionite Co. (1881) , 17 Ch. 
 D. 250, 257 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 544, and see section 52. 
 
 2 Lee v. Nuttall (1879), 12 Ch. D. 61. 
 
 "Scott v. Swanson (1907), 39 S. C. R. 229; Adams v. Kim (1919), 
 46 O. L. R. 113. Similarly a creditor whose personal claim became a 
 claim in rem under a provincial assignments Act became a secured 
 creditor: Wyld v. Clarkson (1886), 12 O. R. 589. 
 
 'Compare RoUnhood v. Maple Leaf (1916), 26 M. L. R. 238. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 79 
 
 against which he proves 5 . Thus a creditor who has Section 2(gg) 
 a surety for the principal debt and also security for it 
 on the estate of the principal debtor is not as regards 
 the surety a "secured creditor", but may present a 
 petition against the surety without giving credit for the 
 security, for the surety is not entitled to the security 
 until he pays the debt 6 . But it has been held that the ac- 
 ceptance by the bankrupt of a bill of exchange in the 
 terms "accepted payable on delivery up of the bill of 
 lading", has made the bank which held the bill of 
 exchange and the bill of lading against advances to the 
 consignor a secured creditor; for the substance of the 
 transaction must be looked at, and in effect the secur- 
 ity was on the property of the bankrupt and not on 
 that of a third party 7 . 
 
 Obviously a mere written promise to pay on the Bills of 
 part of the debtor, whether or not this promise is in exc ange ' 
 the form of a bill of exchange accepted by the debtor, 
 does not give the creditor any security on the pro- 
 perty of the debtor 8 . It was at one time thought that 
 the case might be different if, for example, a debtor 
 pledged to a banker as security for a debt, bills of 
 exchange on which other persons were liable in addi- 
 tion to the debtor. It was, however, held by the Court 
 of Appeal in England, that endorsed bills of exchange 
 on which third parties are liable, and which are held 
 by the bank "pending discount", the bank having made 
 advances upon them, were not securities to be valued. 
 It was suggested that the test was whether the cus- 
 tomer's endorsement was an endorsement without re- 
 course or was a complete endorsement giving all the 
 legal remedies of an endorsement. If a complete 
 endorsement the law considers that although at one 
 
 '& parte West Riding Union Banking Co. in re Turner (1881), 19 
 Ch. D. 105, 112. The rule under some Provincial Assignments Acts was 
 different ; and see Wyld v. Clarkson, supra. 
 
 "In re Hodges ex parte Matthews (1896), 3 Mans. 329, and see Ex 
 parte and in re A Debtor (1919), 4 H. B. R. 221. 
 
 1 Ex parte Brett in re Howe (1871) , L. R. 6 Ch. 838 ; 40 L. J. Bank. 
 54, and see further notes to sec. 46. 
 
 "Ex parte Ashworth in re Hoare (1874), L. R. 18 Bq. 705 ; 43 L. J. 
 Bank. 143 ; it is immaterial that it is an accommodation bill : Bell v. 
 Ottawa Trust & Deposit Co. (1897), 28 O. R. 519. But such bills of 
 exchange should be set out in the creditor's proof: see Form 47, and see 
 Ex parte Kidd in re Ruthven (1898), 5 Mans. 227. 
 
80 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 2(gg) time the bill might under certain circumstances have 
 ' been property of the debtor, yet after such endorse- 
 
 ment it is as if all ithe parties had joined in giving 
 the banker their personal security for the debt". But 
 if a bill is endorsed to a bank for discount only, the 
 customer not being overdrawn at the time, the property 
 in the bill does not pass to the bank until discounted 10 . 
 Where the payee of a promissory note indorses it 
 and hands over to the indorsee with it a collateral guar- 
 antee for the note by a third party, the indorsee on the 
 payee's bankruptcy is not a secured creditor. 11 
 Piirchaser The purchaser of property of the debtor is not a 
 
 not a°seeured secured creditor ; though a mortgagee would be. Simi- 
 ereditor. larly a vendor under a conditional .sale agreement is 
 not a secured creditor of the purchaser 12 . But a ven- 
 dor in Quebec may be a secured creditor by reason of 
 his right to demand the resiliation of the sale of a 
 moveable 1 . 
 Mortgage. A person holding a mortgage on the property of 
 
 the debtor or any part thereof as security for a debt 
 due or accruing due to him from the debtor is a secured 
 creditor within this sub-section. Such a mortgage may 
 , be either legal or equitable, but where title deeds are 
 
 in the possession of the bank for one purpose, a verbal 
 assent on the part of the debtor that they may be 
 held by the bank as security for his debt is not suffi- 
 cient to take the case out of the Statute of Frauds 
 and create an equitable mortgage 2 . If a mortgagee of 
 land gains lawful possession of the land he is entitled 
 as against the mortgagor and his trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy to the crops on the mortgaged land 3 . The 
 
 'Ex parte Schofield m re Firth (1879), 12 Ch. D. 337; 48 L. J. 
 Bank. 122. 
 
 10 Dawson v. Isle (1906), 1 Ch. 633; 75 L. J. Ch. 338; and see 
 Buchanan v. Findlay (1829), 9 B. & C. 738. 
 
 11 In re Hallett ex parte Cocks (1894), 2 Q. B. 256; 63 L. X Q- B. 
 676 ; 1 Mans. 83. 
 
 "See In re Empire Traction Co., Ltd. (1921), 1 C. B. R. 361 
 (Blain, M.C.). 
 
 l In re Rosenweia, Goldfield's Claim (1921), 1 C. B. R. 385, 387; 
 56 D. L. R. 101 (Panneton, J.). This, it seems, is a "privilege 
 within section 2 (fig). B.C. 
 
 2 Ex parte Broderick in re Beetham (1887), 18 Q. B. tD. 766; Ob 
 L. J. Q. B. 635 ; 35 W. R. 613. 
 
 3 In re Gordon ex parte O. R. (1899) , 61 L. T. 299 ; 6 Mor. 150. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 81 
 
 mortgage need not have been registered; for as the Section 2(gg) 
 trustee stand in the shoes of the bankrupt he takes 
 subject to unregistered mortgages or charges 4 , unless 
 avoided by legislation similar to section 30. A judg- 
 ment creditor who on foreclosure proceedings in the 
 Master 's office redeems and obtains an assignment of 
 the mortgage becomes, after the taking of the new 
 account and the confirmation of the Master's report, a 
 mortgagee of the lands, not merely to secure the orig- 
 inal mortgage debt, but also the judgment debt 5 . 
 
 A creditor may he secured by a charge on existing charge on 
 property or on property not yet acquired by the debtor. pSty. ng pr °" 
 
 Sequestration, which is a process available where Sequestra- 
 the person against whom it is issued is in contempt tl0n ' 
 for disobedience of the court, does not give the person 
 issuing the writ any charge over the property seized so 
 as to make him a secured creditor 6 , even after payment 
 into court to the account of the sequestrator 7 , although _ 
 semble, if the order is that after payment of the 
 sequestrator's costs the balance of the fund be carried 
 to the general credit of the action the sequestrator 
 will be in the position of a secured creditor of the 
 bankrupt 8 . 
 
 An attachment of goods to compel the appearance Attach- 
 of the defendant does not make the plaintiff a secured ment - 
 creditor". 
 
 An order appointing a receiver can only amount Receiver, 
 to a charge if it charges the person in whose hands 
 the money is, not to deal with it except in one way; 
 
 'John Macdonald & Co., Ltd. v. Tew (1914), 32 O. L. R. 262; Craig 
 v. McKay et al. (1906), 12 O. L. R. 121; Kitching v. Sicks (1884), 
 6 0. R. 739; Robinson v. .Cook (1884), 6 O. R. 590; Collver v. Shaw 
 (1873), 19 Gr. 599. 
 
 • Scott v. Swanson (1907), 39 S. C. R. 229 ; Adams v. Kiers (1919), 
 46 O. L. R. 113. 
 
 'In re Hastings ex parte Brown (1892), 61 L. J. Q. B. 654; 2 Mor. 
 
 ' In re and ex parte Pollard (1903) , 2 K. B. 41 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 509 ; 
 10 Mans. 152. 
 
 8 In re and ex parte Pollard, supra, per Romer, L.J., at p. 48. 
 'Levy v. Lovell, 14 Ch. D. 234 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 305 ; Ex parte Sear in 
 re Price (1881), 17 Ch. D. 74. 
 
 B.C.— 6 
 
82 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Money paid 
 into Court. 
 
 Charge on 
 future pro 
 perty and 
 license to 
 seize. 
 
 Section 2(gg) that is to pay it to or to hold it for the execution credi- 
 tor 10 . 
 
 Where a defendant pays money into Court in sat- 
 isfaction with a denial of liability, and before the 
 hearing becomes bankrupt, the plaintiff is .a secured 
 creditor to the extent to which the claim in the action 
 is admitted by the trustee in the defendant's bank- 
 ruptcy 1 , and generally it has been said 2 , that where 
 money is paid into court to abide the event it must be 
 treated as a security if the decision is in his favour 3 . An 
 order for payment into court, which otherwise might 
 make a creditor a secured creditor, may fall within the 
 period of the relation back of the title of the trustee 
 and so be deprived of that effect unless the transac- 
 tion comes within the protection of section 32 4 . 
 
 An assignment or charge of future property may 
 be invalid if it is too "vague" or too wide 5 . If the so- 
 called charge is a mere license to seize future chat- 
 tels, and not an actual assignment 6 , no interest will 
 arise under the license to seize until the chattels come 
 into existence and the power is exercised. One result 
 of this is that if before the chattels come into existence 
 the debtor is made bankrupt and obtains his discharge 
 the creditor's license 1 to seize, which was auxiliary to 
 
 10 In re Pearce ex parte 0. R. (1919), 1 K. B. 354; In re Potts ex 
 parte Taylor (1893), 1 Q. B. 648: 62 L. J. Q. B. 392; 10 Mor. 52; 
 In re' Dickenson ex parte Charrmgton* (1&S9), 22 Q. B. D. 187; 
 58 L. J. Q. B. 1 ; 6 Mor. 1 ; Levasseur v. Mason & Barry (1901), 2 Q. B. 
 73, has been distinguished on the ground that in that case there was no 
 question of an English bankruptcy ; In re Pearce ex parte 0. R-, supra, 
 at 364. And see In re Tillett ex parte Kingscote (1889), 6 Mor. 70. 
 
 */» re Gordon ex parte Navalchand (1897), 2 Q. B. 516; 66 L. J. 
 Q. B. 768 ; 46 W. R. 31 ; 4 Mans. 141. 
 
 2 Ex parte Trustee in re Ford (1900), 2 Q. B. 211 ; 82 L. T. 625; 48 
 W. R. 688, sub nom. ex parte Maclister, 69 L. J. Q. B. 690 ; 7 Mans. 281. 
 
 •See also Doctor v. People's Trust Go. (1912), 18. B. C. R. ltt; 
 Ex parte Banner in re Key worth, L. R. 9 Ch. 379 ; 43 L. J. K. B. 102 ; 
 30 L. T. 620; Ex parte Bouchard in re Moojin, 12 Ch. D. 26; 48 
 L. J. K. B. 105 ; Tomlinson v. Sampson, 38 Sol. J. 401, and compare 
 Butler v. Wearing (1885), 17 Q. B. D. 182; 3 Mor. 5; see In reTre- 
 hearne (1890), 60 L. J. Q. B. 50 ; 7 Mor. 261; Re Bagley (19H), 1 
 K. B. 317 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 168 ; 18 Mans. 1 ; Ex parte 0. R. «» « 
 Webster (1907), 1 K. B. 623; Wood v. Dunn, L. R. 6 Q. B. 73; 36 
 L. J. Q. B. 27, and see Sec. 11 (1). 
 
 4 In re G-ershaw & Levy ex parte Cook & Richards (1915), 2 !£• 
 B. 527 ; 84 L. J. K. B. 1668 ; 1 H. B. R. 146. on 
 
 "Tailby v. O. R. (1888), 13 A. C. 523, 529; In re D'EpineuU, W 
 Ch. D. 758; In re Clarke, Coombe v. Carter (1887), 36 Ch. D. 349; 
 In re Reis ex parte Clough (1904), 2 K. B. 769, 783.. 
 
 An agreement to assign future chattels gives an equitable title only: 
 McAllister v. Forsyth (1S85), 12 S. C. R. 1. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 83 
 
 the debt, falls with the debt, and the creditor is not a Section 2feg) 
 secured creditor'. 
 
 But where instead of a mere license to seize there is Assignment 
 an actual assignment of future chattels creating anehatteisf 
 interest in them the result is different. It was at one 
 time thought that 'Colly er v.- Isaacs* laid down the 
 proposition that no matter whether an assignment is 
 in the form of a covenant to assign or of an actual 
 assignment it amounts in the case of after-acquired 
 property to no more than a covenant -to assign, and 
 therefore a covenant which would be released by the 
 discharge of the bankrupt. It was, however, held by 
 the Court of Appeal in In re Lind, Industrials Finance 
 v. Lind d , that the right of the assignee is a higher 
 right than the right to have specific performance of a 
 contract, and that the assignment creates an equitable 
 charge which arises immediately upon the property 
 coming into existence 10 . It appears to follow that the 
 creditor is a secured creditor 1 . 
 
 A trader cannot by any assignment or charge give Assignment 
 a good title as against his trustee in bankruptcy to "eeeiptsand 
 profits or receipts of his business accruing after the debts- 
 commencement of his bankruptcy 2 for this is an attempt 
 to assign a debt which might become due to his 
 trustee at a future time. Nothing being due to the 
 trader at the date of the assignment he had nothing 
 to assign ; but if the money is due to the trader at the 
 date of the assignment, even though payable in instal- 
 ments at a future time, he can assign it as against 
 the trustee 3 . Where one member of a partnership pur- 
 
 ' Reeve v. Whitmore (1863), 33 L. J. Ch. 63; Thompson v. Cohen 
 (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 527; Cole v. Kernott (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 534n ; 
 Collyer v. Isaacs (1881) , 19 Ch. D. 342. 
 
 8 Supra. 
 
 8 (1915), 2 Ch. 345. 
 
 10 Ibid, 366; Carr v. Allatt (1858), 27 L. J. Ex. 385; Brown v. 
 Bateman (1867), L. R. 2 C. P. 272; 36 L. J. C. P. 134; Holroyd v. 
 Marshall (1861), 10 H. L. C. 191. 
 
 1 As to the distinction between a specific and a floating charge see 
 further, Tailbyv. O. R. (1888), 13 A. C. 523, 526; In re Yorkshire Wool- 
 combers' Association (1903), 2 Ch. 284; National Provincial v. United 
 Electric (1916), i Ch. 132. 
 
 2 Ex parte Nichols in re Jones (1883), 22 Ch. D. 782; 52 L. J. 
 Ch. 635; Wilmot v. Alton (1897), 1 Q. B. 17 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 42 ; 4 
 Man. 17. 
 
 3 In re Davis ex parte Rawlings (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 193; Ex 
 rarte Moss in re Toward (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 310. 
 
84 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Seetion2(gg) ported by deed to assign the book debts of the firm as 
 security for a debt due by the firm, signing the deed in 
 his individual name and. also (without authority), in 
 the name of his partner, it was held that whether or 
 not the deed was valid as a deed it operated as a good 
 equitable assignment*. Semble, the charge may be one 
 which is to take effect on the happening of a contin- 
 gency. Thus where a contract between a contractor 
 and an urban council provided that if the council's 
 engineer had reasonable cause to believe that the con- 
 tractor was "unduly delaying payment*' the engineer 
 might direct payment out of the next certificate of 
 sums due to certain manufacturers who had supplied 
 the contractor with machinery, it was held that as the 
 contractor could not withdraw this authority it was 
 not annulled by bankruptcy; and that the presenta- 
 tion by the contractor of a bankruptcy petition was 
 an undue delaying of proper payment sufficient to 
 authorize the engineer to direct payment to the manu- 
 facturers 5 . 
 Lien. Liens are either legal or equitable. Legal hens 
 
 fie^s!^ fall into two classes: specific and general. A speci- 
 fic lien is a lien attaching to certain property 
 with respect to purchase money due therefor or for 
 work and labour performed in connection therewith 6 . 
 Many examples might be given of specific liens, liens 
 for example for work and labour by a brickmaker 
 working on the property of his employer 7 , or by wood- 
 men working for contractors on timber limits 8 , or by 
 a mechanic 9 , or by a carriage maker for repairs 10 . A 
 person holding a lien is a secured creditor 11 . 
 
 l In re Briggs ex parte Wright (1906), 2 K. B. 209; 74 L. J. K. B. 
 591 ■ 95 L T 6i 
 
 ' 5 /m re Wilkinson ex parte Fowler , (1905), 2 K. B. 713; 74 L. J. 
 K. B. 969 ; 12 Mans. 377. 
 
 Dixon v. Yates, 5 B. & A. 503 ; Houlditche v. Milne, 3 Bsp. 86. 
 
 ' Roberts v. Bank of Toronto (1894), 21 O. A. R. 629. 
 
 " Good v. Nepisiquit Lumber Co. (1913), 11 D. L. R. 850. 
 
 'In re Clinton Thresher Co. (1910), 1 O. W. N. 445; the fact that 
 the lien is registered subsequently to the making of the receiving order 
 is immaterial if it has attached before that date ; see In re Empire Brew- 
 ing and Malting Co. (1891), 8 M. L. R. 424, and sec. 6(1). 
 
 10 Stewart v. Ledoux (1875), 2 Rev. Crit. 482. 
 
 11 hi re Rockland Chocolate and Cocoa Co., Ltd. (1921), 1 0. B. 
 R. 452 (Orde, J.). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 85 
 
 A factor as distinguished from a broker has not Section 2(gg) 
 only a specific lien on all goods in his possession while General 
 they remain in his possession ; but he has also a gen- Victor's 
 eral lien on the price of the article when the article is Ken. 
 sold, and is in tbe hands of the buyer. He has, there- 
 fore, the power of giving a discharge or bringing an 
 action or retaining the money, and his trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy has the same rights 1 . 
 
 By the law merchant a banker has a general lien Banker's 
 ' upon all the securities in his hands belonging to any lien - 
 particular person for his general balance 2 , unless any 
 particular security has been received under special 
 circumstances, which take it out of the general rule, 
 as where boxes and contents have been deposited with 
 bankers for safe, custody only 3 , or where bills are re- 
 ceived by bankers for the express purpose of being 
 delivered to the customer*, or where a policy of life 
 insurance is deposited with bankers accompanied by 
 a memorandum of charge to secure overdrafts *hot to 
 exceed a specified amount 5 , or where securities known 
 to the bank to belong to some other person have been 
 deposited by a customer for a special purpose. 6 . 
 
 A-solicitor has not only a general lien 7 , but he has Solicitor's 
 in addition an equitable lien on the proceeds of litiga- llen- 
 tion for his costs in that litigation 8 . 
 
 A lien for a general balance may be established General 
 by agreement 9 . A common carrier is at common law agreement, 
 entitled only to a lien for the carriage price of the 
 particular goods; but he may establish a lien for his 
 general balance by contract either express or implied 10 . 
 
 1 Drinkwater v. Goodwin (1775), 1 Cowp. 251; Hudson v. Granger 
 (1S21), 5 B. & Aid. 27. 
 
 'Davis v. Bowsher (1794), 5 T. R. 488. 
 
 'Leese v. Martin (1873), L. R. 17 Eq. 224. 
 
 'Brandao v. Barnett (1846), 12 CI. & F.. 787. 
 
 'In re Bowes, Strathmore v. Vane (1886), 33 Ch. D. 586; 35 W. R. 
 166 ; 55 L. T. 260 ; but see In re London & Globe Finance Corporation 
 (1902), 2 Ch. 416. 
 
 'Cuthbert v. Roberts (1909), 2 Ch. 226; 78 L. J. Ch. 113, 529; 
 100 L. T. 62, 796 ; 53 Sol. J. 559. 
 
 7 Wilkins v. Carmichael (1779), 1 Doug. (K.B.) 101, 104; Cowell v. 
 Simpson (1809), 16 Ves. 275; In re Boston Wood Rim Co. (1905), 
 5 O. W. R. 149. 
 
 % In re Cockrell's Trust (1911), 2 Ch. 318. 
 
 * Kirkman v. Shawcross (1794), 6 T. R. 14. 
 
 "Rushford v. Hadfield (1806), 7 East. 224, and see Great Eastern 
 Railway v. Lord's' Trustee, 1909, A. C. 109 ; 78 L. J. K. B. 160 ; 100 L. T. 
 
86 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 general lieu. 
 
 EquitaMe 
 liens. 
 
 Conditions 
 on which 
 liens attach. 
 
 Section2(gg) A usage for carriers to retain goods as a lien for 
 Rights under a general balance of account between them and the 
 consignees cannot affect the right of the consignor to 
 stop the goods in transitu 1 . 
 
 A vendor has an equitable lien for unpaid pur- 
 chase money on real estate 2 . Although the lien may 
 be lost on a sale of the property under a sheriff's sale 
 to a purchaser for value without notice, it has bee.n 
 held that it reattaches when the property comes back 
 to the debtor 3 . The vendor's lien for unpaid purchase 
 money extends also to personal property 4 , and inter- 
 est is recoverable from the date on which the debt was 
 incurred 5 . A purchaser has an equitable lien on the 
 vendor's interest in the property -agreed to be sold, 
 for all sums paid by him under the contract on account 
 of purchase money 6 . 
 
 Where possession of the property is a condition 
 precedent to the existence of the lien, possession must , 
 be lawfully obtained, and under circumstances which 
 permit the lien to attach. Thus where goods are de- 
 livered to a person who wrongfully claims them, and 
 who pays freight and other charges, he has no hen on 
 them for those "expenses as against the rightful owner 7 . 
 Similarly a solicitor to whom a mortgagee has deliv- 
 ered title deeds for safe keeping, has no lien on them 
 for work done for the mortgagor 8 ; and semble, a factor 
 who has received goods of a debtor for sale after the 
 
 130 ; 16 Mans. 1, as to a lien for carriage of coal conferred by " ledger 
 agreement." 
 
 1 Oppenheim v. Russell (1802), 3 B. & P. 42, and see as to a con- 
 tract which was designed to avoid this rule, United States Steel Produets 
 Co. v. Great Western Railway Co. (1916), 1 A. C. 189. See also as to 
 the right to enforce a general lien against a pledgee and a surety, Jowitt 
 & Sons v. Union Cold Storage (1913), 1 K.'B. 1. 
 
 2 Kettlewell v. Watson (1884), 26 Ch. D. 501. 
 
 s Van Wagner v. Fmdlay (1867), 14 Gr. 53. 
 
 'Davies v. Thomas (1900), 2 Ch. 462; 69 L. J. Ch. 643; 83 L. T. 
 11; In re Stucley, Stucley v. Kekewich (1906), 1 Ch. 67; 75 L. J. Ch. 
 58 ; 93 L. T. 718 ; 54 W. R. 256. 
 
 6 In re Stucley, Stucley v. Kekewich, supra. 
 
 • Westmacott v. Rooins (1864), 4 DeG. F. & J. 390; Rose v. Wat- 
 son (1864), 10 H. L. C. 672; Levy v. Stogdon (1898), 1 Ch. 478; 67 
 L. J. Ch. 313; 78 L. T. 185. 
 
 ' Lempriere v. Pasley (1788), 2 T. K. 485; Madden v. Eempster 
 (1807), 1 Camp. 121. 
 
 'Ex parte Fuller in re Long (1881), 16 Ch. D. 617; 50 L. J. Ch. 
 448 ; 44 L. T. 63 ; 29 W. E. 448, 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 87 
 
 date to which the title of the trustee relates back, and Section2(gg) 
 who is not protected by section 32, has no lien for 
 moneys advanced to the debtor 9 . Where a bill was 
 sent by a debtor to merchants to be discounted, and 
 the proceeds to be applied in a particular way, and 
 the merchants did not discount the bill, but received 
 the money when it became due, it was held that no 
 lien was created by the original transaction and the 
 merchants were liable to be sued by the assignees in 
 bankruptcy of the debtor 10 ; and similarly where bank- 
 ers had the right to discount endorsed bills of exchange 
 to an amount necessary to meet acceptances of their 
 customers, and having received an endorsed bill of 
 exchange, they refused the acceptances which it was 
 designed to cover, and soon after stopped payment, and 
 then discounted the bill, their trustee in bankruptcy 
 was ordered to deliver up the bill 1 . 
 
 Where documents ■ upon which a solicitor 's lien Loss of 
 exists are taken away without the consent of the lien - 
 solicitors, the lien is not lost 2 . A solicitor's lien on 
 documents of title is not affected by reason of the fact 
 that the claim in respect of which the lien existed was 
 barred by The Statute of Limitations 3 , nor is a vendor's 
 lien on personal estate subject to any statutory bar 
 in England 4 . 
 
 An authorization to sell chattels against an account Authoriza- 
 gives the shopkeeper a security on the deposited chat- J^pe?^ 11 
 tels where a bare authority to sell if executed gives no 
 security but a set-off 5 . 
 
 Where a bankrupt had pledged stocks of his own Marshalling. . 
 with a bank to cover advances, and had at the- same 
 time wrongfully pledged with the bank for the same 
 purpose stocks of one who was indebted to him, and 
 
 'Copeland v. Stein (1799), S T. R. 199. Where possession was 
 taken under a document subsequently rescinded, see Parher v. Lyon 
 (1888), 5 T. L. R. 10. 
 
 10 Buchanan y. Findlay (1829) , 9 B. & C. 738. 
 
 1 In re and ex parte Frere, 1 Mont, and McA. 263. 
 
 'In re Carter, Carter v. Carter (1885), 55 L. J. Ch. 230. 
 
 3 S. G. 
 
 'In re Stucley, Stucley v. Kekewich (1906), 1 Ch. 67; 75 L. J. 
 Ch. 58. 
 
 5 In re Rose ex parte Basluck (1894), 1 Mans. 218. 
 
88 
 
 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Sections 
 2(hh), 2(ii) 
 
 "From the 
 debtor." 
 
 ''Sheriff." 
 
 " Special 
 resolution." 
 
 the bank on his bankruptcy sold the shares wrong- 
 fully pledged, the person whose stocks were so sold 
 was held entitled by a process analogous to that of 
 marshalling to have enough of the unsold pledged 
 stocks of the bankrupt handed over to him to make up 
 his loss 8 . 
 
 The words "from the debtor" were not in the 
 English Act of 1869. They prevent a company which 
 has a lien on all shares for moneys due the company, 
 from being a secured creditor of a debtor who had 
 obtained a judgment against a shareholder declaring 
 that the shareholder was a trustee of his shares for 
 the debtor. Though the lien is in one sense a security 
 in their hands it is not such a security as makes them 
 secured creditors 7 . 
 
 2 (Jiti) "sheriff" includes bailiff and any officer 
 charged with the execution of a writ or other 
 process : 
 
 Cross References Act: Sheriff to deliver property to trustee 
 11(3) ; an act of bankruptcy where goods are seized and sold by 
 sheriff 3(e). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. 167. 
 
 See Bellyse v. McGinn (1891), 2 Q. B. 227; 6 L. T. 
 318; Ex parte Warren (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 48; 54 L. J. 
 Q. B. 320; 2 Mor. 142'. 
 
 (ii) "special resolution" means a resolution 
 decided by a majority in number of the cre- 
 ditors present, personally or by proxy, at a 
 meeting of creditors and voting three- 
 fourths in value of the proved debts on the 
 resolution : 
 
 Cross References Act: 
 Analogous Legislation: 
 
 Ordinary resolution 2 («)(//)• 
 English Act, 1914, s. 167. 
 
 'In re Burge ex parte Skyrme (1912), 1 K. B. 393; 81 L. J. K. B. 
 721 ; 20 Mans. 11. D 
 
 ' In re Perkins ex parte Mexican Santa Barhara (1890) , 24 Q. o.U. 
 613 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 226 ; 7 Mor. 32. This case is also put upon tM 
 ground that the company held no lien upon the shares as they were not 
 bound to recognize trusts. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 89 
 
 The Act nowhere requires the passing of a " special Sections 
 resolution" as a condition to action. 8(JJ)» 2(kk) 
 
 2 (jj) "trustee" or "authorized trustee" "Trustee." 
 
 ^•>J ' -. _ . ., , , , N ' Authorized 
 
 means, dependent upon the context, {a) one trustee." 
 of the persons appointed by the Governor in 
 Council, under authority of this Act as pro- 
 per persons to be trustees in bankruptcy or 
 otherwise hereunder, or (fc) one of such 
 persons named in a receiving order or in an 
 authorized assignment to act, or who is 
 otherwise hereunder authorized to act, as a 
 trustee in bankruptcy, or under an author- 
 ized assignment or in connection with a 
 proposal by a debtor for a composition, 
 extension or arrangement to or with his 
 creditors : 
 
 Cross References Act: See generally 14 to 24, and in the Index; 
 receiving order 6(1) ; authorized assignment 9. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Defined 2(1) ; discharge of trustee 107- 
 110; and see Index. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Forms for appointment or substitution 
 of trustee 32 to 35 ; bond to registrar 36 ; application of trustee for his 
 discharge 42, 43 ; order discharging trustee 44. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, sr. 167. 
 
 Under the English Act of 1883, "trustee" did not 
 include a trustee in composition proceedings for the 
 purpose of examining the debtor under the equivalent 
 of section 56 8 . 
 
 2 (kk) " wage-earner "means one who works for" wagej 
 wages, salary, commission or hire at a rate earner - 
 of compensation not exceeding fifteen hun- 
 dred dollars per year, and who does not on 
 his own account carry on business : 
 
 Cross References Act: Part I. of the Act does not apply to wage- 
 earners 8(1). 
 
 "In re Grant ex parte Whinney (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 238; 55 L. J. 
 Q. B. 369 ; 3 Mor. 118. 
 
90 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 Bankruptcy . and Receiving Oedees. 
 
 Acts of Bankruptcy. 
 
 section 3 3, a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in 
 each of the following cases: — 
 
 Cross References Act: Available act of bankruptcy 22(A), 4 
 (3) (6), 8(2) ; effect of notice of 32 (1) (d) (ii). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. 1(1). 
 
 Section 3 deals with "acts of bankruptcy," those 
 indicia of insolvency on which the English system of 
 involuntary bankruptcy has long been founded. 
 
 The principal question for determination under our 
 Act is whether an act of bankruptcy as such is a void, 
 or a voidable, or a valid and unimpeachable transac- 
 tion. 
 
 In England the solution of this question is simpli- 
 fied by the title of the trustee, which relates back to 
 and avoids certain- of the transactions which are acts 
 of bankruptcy. Under our Act the relation back of the 
 title of the trustee is much less extensive and affords 
 no assistance in the determination of this matter 1 . 
 
 There is one further preliminary matter to dispose 
 of in considering the respective positions in England 
 and in Canada. The English Bankruptcy Act of 1914 
 is a codifying statute which follows on three hundred 
 and seventy years of bankruptcy law. The Canadian 
 Act of 1919 is a new law. In England there is what 
 may be called a common law of bankruptcy which may 
 or may not be resorted to. In Canada there is no com- 
 mon law of the Dominion ; and while it is true that cer- 
 tain provinces have introduced or carried with them 
 
 1 See as to the relation back of the title of the trustee, notes to 
 section 4(10). In England the doctrine "once a bankrupt always a 
 bankrupt " formerly existed ; that is to say, that once a debtor had 
 committed an act of bankruptcy he was prospectively and for all time 
 deprived of his capacity to deal with his property ; for the title of the 
 ■assignees once appointed could relate back without limitation of time 
 to the first act of bankruptcy. See Williams, Bankruptcy Practice, 
 12th edition, p. 202. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 91 
 
 the English law of bankruptcy, that law has never been Section 3 
 introduced into others, e.g., Ontario and Quebec 2 . 
 
 If the eight acts of bankruptcy mentioned in section 
 3 are void transactions they would appear to be void 
 without limitation of time ; but the Act nowhere declares 
 them to be void, and it is submitted that such a decision 
 is unlikely. While there are expressions in some Eng- 
 lish cases on which such a decision might be rested 3 , 
 the latest English case in the Court of Appeal is 
 against such a construction, and the tendency appears 
 to be to hold that the transaction is avoided by the 
 relation back of the trustee 's title*. Further the eight 
 acts of bankruptcy in question are of two classes: 
 those which are the result of some positive act of the 
 debtor, as the making by him of a fraudulent convey- 
 ance or preference, and those in which the debtor is pas- 
 sive, as in the sale of the debtor's goods by the sheriff. 
 It has been held that transactions of the second class, 
 namely, those in invitiim, are not void as between the 
 parties, and that title can be made under them ; nor are 
 they interfered with by the relation back of the trus- 
 tee's title 5 . As regards those of the first class certain 
 of them are expressly avoided, either by force of the 
 Bankruptcy Act, such as assignments for the general 
 benefit of creditors other than authorized assign- 
 ments 6 , and fraudulent preferences 7 , or by force of 
 provincial law, such as fraudulent conveyances which 
 fall under the provincial equivalent of 13 Eliz. c. 5. 
 Among those of the first class which are not expressly 
 avoided by the Act are authorized assignments, which 
 are by section 3(a) made acts of bankruptcy. 
 
 If on the other hand all acts of bankruptcy other 
 
 2 See Chapters II., III., IV., supra. 
 
 8 See per Mell'sh, L.J., in In re Rogers ex parte Yttlars (1874), 
 L. R. 9' Oh. 432: 436; 43 L. J. Bank. 76, 77.- 
 
 i In re Ounsoourg (No. 3) ex parte Trustee (1920), 89' L. J. K. B. 
 725; (1920), B. & C. R. 50; (1920), 2 K. B. 426; per Cozens-Hardy, 
 Mitt., and Warrington, L.J., in In re Halstead ex parte Richardson 
 (1917), 1 K. B. 695 ; 86 L. J. K. B. 621 ; (1917) , H. B. R. 60, 68-9, 76; 
 and see In re Birth ex< parte O. R. (1899), 1 Q. B. 612, 621; 68 L. J. 
 Q. B. 287 ; 6 Mans. 10 ; Johnson v. Osenton (1869) , L. R. 4 Ex. 107, 114, 
 115; Siggers v. Evans (1855), 5 E. & B. 367; Allen v. Bonnett (1870), 
 L. R. 5 Oh. 577. 
 
 'In re Rogers ex parte Villars (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 432; 43 L. J. 
 Bank. 76. 
 
 ' See section 9. * See section 31. 
 
92 
 
 TEE BANKRUPTCY, ACT. 
 
 Section 3 
 
 Acts of 
 bankruptcy 
 and sec. 32. 
 
 Estoppel. 
 
 Act of 
 bankruptcy 
 revokes 
 power of 
 attorney. 
 
 than those in invitwm are voidable, it follows that a 
 " fraudulent preference which is voidable for a period of 
 three months under section 31 is voidable for a further 
 period of three months, or six months in all under sec- 
 tion 4(3) (6). 
 
 A somewhat similar point to the one now under dis- 
 cussion arose under the Insolvent Act of 1864 in the 
 leading and much discussed case of Thome v. Tor- 
 ranee*. It was there held that although there was no 
 relation back of the trustee's title under the statute, 
 still an assignment which was an act of bankruptcy 
 and taken advantage of in due time was avoided by 
 the issue of a writ of attachment 9 . 
 
 If the transaction which is itself an act of bank- 
 ruptcy comes within section 32 of the Act it is pro- 
 tected 3 , but where there is not good, faith there is no 
 protection 4 . 
 
 A solicitor retained to sue a debtor has no authority 
 to assent to the execution by the debtor of a deed 
 of assignment, and if he does so assent the plaintiff is 
 not precluded from commencing bankruptcy proceed- 
 ings against the debtor alleging the deed of assign- 
 ment as the act of bankruptcy 5 . 
 
 A power of attorney is as a general rule revoked as 
 against the trustee in bankruptcy by a subsequent 
 act of bankruptcy in which an adjudication is made; 
 but transactions under it may be protected if the pur- 
 chaser had no notice of the act of bankruptcy 6 . 
 
 • (1866), 16 U. C. C. P. 445, 460; (1868), 18 U. O. C. P. 29, 31, 
 followed in Rose v. Brown (1866), 16 U. C. 0. P. 477; and see Wilson 
 v. Cramp (1865), 11 Gr. 444. 
 
 9 Section 32 would protect innocent parties under transactions 
 avoided as acts of bankruptcy. It also applies to protect innocent 
 parties against the relation back of the title of the trustee. See further 
 as to the extent in England of the avoidance of a transaction amounting 
 to an act of bankruptcy: Stein v. Pope (1902), 1 K. B. 595; 71 L. J. 
 K. B. 322; 9 Mans. 125; Carr v. Acraman, 25 L. J. Ex. 90; In re 
 O'Sullwan em parte Bailer, 61 L. J. Q. B. 228 ; In re Johnson ex parte 
 Wright, 99 L. T. 305 ; 52 Sol. J. 622. 
 
 'In re Sills, Shears v. Goddard (1896), 1 Q. B. 406; 65 L. J. Q- B. 
 344 ; 3 Mans. 24 ; of. ex parte Oundry in re Sharp (1900), 83 L. T. 416. 
 
 4 In re Jukes ew parte 0. R. (1902) , 2 K. B. 58 ; 71 L. J. K. B. 710; 
 9 Mans. 249. 
 
 c In re and ex parte Debtor (No. 1 of 1914) (1914), 2 K. B. 758; 
 83 L. J. K. B. 1176 ; 21 Mans. 155, and see further notes to section 3(»). 
 
 'Ex parte Snowball m re Douglas (1872), L. E. 7 Ch. 534, 548. 
 
TUB BANKRUPTCY *ACT. 93 
 
 As to intent generally in acts of bankruptcy, see Iw Section 3(a) 
 
 re Wood''. Intent.. 
 
 3 (a) If in Canada or elsewhere he makes an Assignment, 
 assignment of his property to a trustee or 
 trustees for the benefit of his creditors gen- 
 erally, whether it is an assignment author- 
 ized by this Act or not ; 
 
 Cross References Act: Authorized assignment 9 ; assignment of 
 goods with intent to defraud creditors an act of bankruptcy 3(g) ; where 
 the Court is satisfied that the estate can best be administered under the 
 assignment it may dismiss the petition for a receiving order 4(6). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. 1(1) (a) ; Cana- 
 dian Act, 1875, s. 3(;'). 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 The assignment must be on the whole of the property. 
 
 For the benefit of all creditors. 
 
 Whether the deed is an escrow or not. 
 
 " Or elsewhere." 
 
 Proof of intent unnecessary. 
 
 Certain assignments voidable in England are void in Canada. 
 
 As to validity of certain payments made under voidable assignment. 
 
 A creditor who consents cannot petition on the deed. 
 
 But he may on another act of bankruptcy. 
 
 Whether creditors party to the assignment can prove for debts. 
 
 Section 3(a) makes assignments under Provincial 
 Acts, acts of bankruptcy. Tbe question of Provincial 
 Assignments is further discussed in section 9. A trans- 
 action which is not an act of bankruptcy within 3(a) 
 may fall within the provisions of 3(g), as to assigning 
 or being about to assign goods with intent to defraud 
 creditors. 
 
 The assignment to come under 3(a) must be an The assign- 
 assignment or conveyance 8 of substantially the whole ^ e en f *^ ust 
 of the debtor's property 9 . An assignment of personal whole of the 
 property in trust to sell the same and apply the pro- 
 ceeds to the payment of debts due certain named 
 creditors is not an assignment for the general benefit 
 
 7 (18,72), L. R. 7 Ch. 302 ; 41 L. J. Bank. 21. 
 
 "Section 2(d). 
 
 "hi re Spademan ex parte Foley or May (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 728; 
 59 L. J. Q. B. 106; 7 Mor. 100; Blain v. Peaker (1889), 18 O. R. 109; 
 An assignment of part of the debtor's property in trust to give the trustee 
 uncontrolled management of the work of completing and selling partly 
 finished houses was not even under section 9 of R. S. O. 1914, c. 134, an 
 assignment for the general benefit of creditors : Foster v. Trusts & Guar- 
 antee Co. (1916), 35 O. L. R. 426. 
 
94 
 
 THB BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Whether the 
 deed is an 
 escrow or 
 not. 
 
 Section 3(a) of creditors 10 . What is an assignment or conveyance 
 must be construed with reference to the particular 
 property to be dealt with, and by the light of the 
 language and practice of conveyancers 1 . 
 For the The assignment to be an act of bankruptcy under 
 
 accreditors, section 3(a), must be for the benefit of the debtor's 
 creditors generally, without regard to particular classes 
 such as trade creditors 2 . Where the deed is for the 
 benefit of certain named creditors only without any 
 option for the others to assent or come in, it is not 
 an assignment for the benefit of the creditors generally; 
 but if the creditors are described by words such as 
 "whose names and seals are hereunto subscribed", 
 these words do not limit the deed to those in the sched- 
 ule, but give a description under which any creditor is 
 entitled to come in afterwards and sign 3 . 
 
 There is an act of bankruptcy even when the assign- 
 ment is expressed to be void provided certain creditors 
 do not sign ; -or provided a commission of bankruptcy 
 should issue 1 , or provided the trustee shall wish to 
 avoid it 5 . Similarly if the assignment is executed with 
 the intention that it operate at once, but only to be 
 known to one or two, and only to be used if neces- 
 sary, it is an act of bankruptcy 6 , but semble, if the deed 
 is delivered as an escrow it will not amount to an act 
 of bankruptcy'. 
 
 The words "or elsewhere" in this section seem to 
 contemplate a conveyance intended to operate accord- 
 
 10 Archibald v. Ilubley (1S90), 18 S. C. R. 116. 
 
 1 In re Hughes (1893) , 1 Q. B. 595 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 358 ; 10 Mor. 91; 
 " and see Ex parte Gundry in re Sharp (1900), 83 L. T. 416, and Bowker 
 
 v. Burdekin (1843), 11 M. & W. 328; and see on the meaning of "or 
 elsewhere," supra. 
 
 2 Was parte Barton in re Phillips (1900), 2 Q. B. 329; Sub nom. ex 
 parte and in re rhillips (1900), 69 L. J. Q. B. 604; 7 Mans. 277; and 
 see Matthews (1880), 53 L. T. 872; Hedges v. Preston (1889), 80 L. T. 
 847 ; Hadley v. Beedom (1895) , 1 Q. B. 646 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 240 ; 2 Mans. 
 47; In re Saumarez ex parte Salaman (1907), 2 K. B. 170; 76 L. J. 
 K. B. S28 ; 14 Mans. 170 ; In re Allias (1914) , 2' K. B. 77 ; 83 L. J. K. B. 
 065; 21 Mans. 1. 
 
 3 General Furnishing & Upholstering Co. V. Venn, 32 L. J. Ex. 220; 
 In re Saumaraz ex parte Salaman, supra; In re Allim, supra; Canadtan 
 Bank of Commerce v. Davidson (1910), 15 W. L. R. 530. 
 
 i Button v. Morrison (1809), 1 Rose, 213; 17 Ves. 193. 
 'Taffenden v. Burgess (1803), 4 East. 230. 
 
 Turner v. ITardcastle (1862) , 11 C. B. N. S. 683 ; 31 L. J. C. P. lw- 
 'Bowker v. Burdekin (1843), 11 M. & W. 128. See further oa 
 this point s. 9. 
 
 "Or else 
 where." 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 95 
 
 ing-to Canadian law. Semble, conveyances not intended section 3(a) 
 to operate according to Canadian Law are not within ~ 
 the section 8 . 
 
 The corresponding sections, of previous English Pr t oof t of n . 
 Acts contained the words "with intent to defeat and necessary, 
 delay creditors". Proof of intent was unnecessary 
 under those Acts ; nor is it required now 9 . 
 
 Apart from Statute there is nothing illegal in a certain 
 debtor conveying all his property to a trustee for the V o!dabie entS 
 benefit of his creditors 1 , although his doing so may be inEi, £if? d 
 
 ° are void in 
 
 an act of bankruptcy 2 ; but such an assignment may be Canada. 
 a fraudulent preference, or void under the Statute of 
 Elizabeth or such like provincial law; or subject to be 
 impeached on the ground of actual fraud 3 . But section 
 9 avoids every assignment other than an authorized 
 assignment made by an insolvent debtor for the gene- 
 ral benefit of his creditors 4 . In England as the title 
 of the trustee relates back to the earliest act of bank- 
 ruptcy committed within a period of three months 
 prior to the presentation of the petition, such trans- 
 
 8 In re and ex parte Crispin (1873), B. R. 8 Ch. 374, 380- 42 L. J. 
 Bank. 65; 28 L. T. 483; 21 W. R. 491; see also Dulaney v. Merry & 
 Son (1901), 1 K. B. 536; 70 L. J. K. B. 377; 84 L. T. 156; 49 W. R. 
 331 ; 8 Mans. 152 ; Cooke v. Vogeler Co. (1901) , A. C. 102 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 
 181 ; 84 L. T. 10; 8 Mans. 113 ; Ex parte Blain in re Sawers (1879), 12 
 Ch. D. 522, 528. The same expression is used in sees. 2(dd), 3(6) (c). 
 The wider statutory definition given to the word " debtor " since these 
 cases were decided does not necessarily interfere with the rule laid down 
 in- In re and ex parte Crispin, although the other "construction is possible. 
 
 'In re. Wood ex parte Luckes (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 302; 41 L. J. 
 Bank. 21; 26 L. T. 113; Ex parte Foley in re Spackman {1890), 24 
 Q. B. D. 728 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 106 ; 38 W. R. 497 ; 62 L. T. 849 ; 7 Mor. 
 ]00. 
 
 1 Per Cleasby, B., in Johnson v. Osenton (1869), L. R. 4 Ex. 107, 
 115. See generally as to transactions . which are acts of bankruptcy, 
 notes to section 3. 
 
 2 See also Siggers v. Evans (1855), 5 E. & B. 367; 24 L. J. Q. B. 
 305; and see In re Mirth ex parte O. R. (1899), 1 Q. B. 612, 621; 
 68 L. J. Q. B. 287 ; 47 W. R. 243 ; 80 L. T. 63 ; 6 Mans. 10 ; Allen v. 
 Bonnett (1870) , L. R. 5 Ch. 577 ; Ex parte Games in re Bamford (1879) , 
 12 Ch. D. 314 ; 27 W. R. 744 ; 40 L. T. 789 ; and see as to title in such a 
 case Re Toppleton and Jones Contract (1896), 74 L. T. 582. 
 
 8 Worsley v. De Mattos (1758) , 1 Burr. 467 ; Ex parte and in re 
 Uilner (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 605; 54 B. J. Q. B. 425; 53 B. T. 652; 
 33 W. R. 867; 2 Mor. 190; Ex parte Chaplin in re Sinclair (1884), 26 
 Ch. D. 319 ; 53 B. J. Ch. 732 ; 51 B. T. 345; Maskelyne v. Smith (1903), 
 1 K. B. 671 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 237 ; 88 B. T. 148 ; 51 W. R. 372 1 ; 10 Mans. 
 121; and see notes to sections 3(&) (c). 
 
 4 See as to law before section 9 was _ passed : Wilson v. Cramp 
 (1865), 11 Gr. 444; Thome v. Torrance (1867), 16 U. C. C. P. 445; 
 18 V. C. C. P. 29. 
 
96 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 3(a) actions though not void may be avoided 5 . In Canada 
 however, there is only a limited relation back to the 
 title of the trustee 8 . This raises questions peculiar to 
 our Act which must be considered separately. 
 
 (a) In the case of a receiving order founded on an 
 assignment for the benefit of creditors, which is not 
 an authorized assignment, but is avoided by section 9, 
 the trustee under the assignment is acting under a void 
 deed; and moreover certain of his transactions will 
 be overreached by the relation back of the title of the 
 trustee. 
 
 (b) Where the receiving order is founded on an 
 authorized assignment it is unlikely that it will be heid 
 that the assignment is avoided as from its commence- 
 ment merely because it was an act of bankruptcy. It 
 is, however, quite possible that after the presentation 
 of a petition a trustee under an authorized assign- 
 ment should stay his hand until the decision of the 
 Court has been given on the question of a receiving 
 order ; and that if he does not hold his hand he may 
 find that within the period covered by the relation back 
 of the title of the new trustee he is a trustee de son 
 tort 7 . 
 
 In such case the effect of the relation back of the 
 title of the new trustee on payments and other transac- 
 tions of the old trustee will be important 5 . They are 
 
 As to 
 validity of 
 certain pay- 
 ments made 
 under void- 
 able assign- 
 ment. 
 
 'Ex parte Gundry in re Sharp (1900), 83 L. T. 416. 
 
 6 See sections 4(10) , 6, 25, Rule 76. 
 
 'Davis v. Petrie (1906), 2 K. B. 786; 75 L. J. K. B. 92; 13 Mans. 
 344; Thome v. Torrance (1866), 16 U. C. C. P. 445; (1868), 18 U. C. 
 O. P. 29 ; In re A. B. & Go. (No. 2) (1900), 2 Q. B. 429 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 
 568 ; 7 Mans. 268. It is considered that if a trustee accepts an author- 
 ized assignment after a petition has already been presented he may find 
 himself in the position of a trustee de son tort. See Crotew and Clark 
 Co., Ltd. (1920), 48 O. L. R. 359; 19 O. W. N. 199; where, however, 
 this point was not argued. 'See notes to section 9. 
 
 An assignment by one partner of his separate estate may be avoided 
 by subsequent proceedings in bankruptcy against the firm: Wilson v. 
 Stevenson (1860), 12 Gr. 239; for where a firm is adjudicated bankrupt 
 all the joint property of the bankrupts as well as the separate P ro P"» 
 of each of them vests in the trustee: Rule 94; Ex parte Voolc (1728), 
 2 P. W. 500; Hague v. Bolleston (1768), 4 Burr. 2176; In re WodieU 
 Contract (1876), 2 Ch. D. 172'; 45 L. J. Ch. 647. A deed of assignment 
 which is void, because unstamped and unregistered, may be given in 
 evidence as proof of an act of bankruptcy in England: In re Eolltngs- 
 head ex parte Heapy (1888), 58 L. J. Q. B. 297; 6 Mor. 66. 
 
 * See for fuller discussion notes to section 4(10). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 97 
 
 overreached by the title of the new trustee. Thus a Section 3(a) 
 solicitor retained by a debtor to sell property and to 
 apply the proceeds in payment of the solicitor's 
 charges under the retainer cannot as against the rela- 
 tion back of the title of the trustee retain such proceeds 
 in respect of charges occurring subsequently to know- 
 ledge by him of an available act of bankruptcy com- 
 mitted by the debtor 9 . Nor can a trustee under an 
 assignment which may be avoided pay out of the assets 
 the fees of solicitors in connection with the meeting of 
 creditors and the deed of assignment 10 . On the same 
 principle a creditor who takes over all the property of 
 a debtor with the object of securing himself and paying 
 other creditors, will on the deed being avoided be held 
 not entitled to payment in full, out of the bankrupt's 
 estate, of the sums which he had paid under the assign- 
 ment; but may be allowed to prove for them in the 
 bankruptcy 1 Section 32 of the Act does not protect 
 payments made not in the ordinary course of business 
 for the purpose of doing that which the law constitutes 
 an act of bankruptcy 2 , such as the taking over by a 
 creditor of all the assets of a debtor with the view of 
 distributing them among the creditors. Where under 
 such a deed one of the creditors obtains a secret 
 advantage in fraud of the general body of creditors, he 
 may not even prove for his original debt, which by 
 the terms of the deed he has released 3 . 
 
 Under the English Act a creditor who assents to or a. creditor 
 acquiesces in, or has recognized a trustee 's title under ^not 11861118 
 an assignment, cannot set up the assignment as an act ^^"Jj 
 of bankruptcy 4 . But when one of joint petitioning 
 
 'In re ■Spaokman ex parte Foley (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 728; 59 L. J. 
 Q. B. 106 ; 7 Mpr. 100. 
 
 10 Ex parte RawUngs in re Forster (1887), 4 Mor. 292. 
 
 l Ex parte Chaplin i» re Sinclair (1884), 26 Ch. D. 319; 53 L. J. 
 Ch. 732. 
 
 2 Ex parte Gundry in re Sharp (1900), 83 L. T. 416; see in re Sills, 
 Shears v. Goddard (1896) , 1 Q. B. 406 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 344 ; 3 Mans. 24. 
 
 * In re and ex parte Myers (1908) , 1 K. B. 941 ; 77 L. J. K. B. 386 ; 
 
 15 Mans. 85. 
 
 *Ea parte Alsop (1860), 29 L. J. Bank. "7 ; 1 DeG. F. & J. 289; 
 Ex parte and in re Stray (1867), L. R. 2 Ch. 374; 36 L. J. Bank. 7; 
 
 16 L. T. 250; 15 W. R. 600; Ex parte Taylor in re Brmdley (1906), 
 1 K. B. 377 ; 75 L. J. K. B. 211 ; 94 L. T. 116 ; 54 W. R. 301 ; 13 Mans. 1 ; 
 Ex parte Goas- in re Clement (1886), 3 Mor. 153 and see notes to 4(3). 
 
 B.C. — 7 
 
98 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 3(a) 
 
 But he may 
 on another 
 act of bank- 
 ruptcy. 
 
 Whether 
 creditors 
 party to 
 the assign- 
 ment can 
 prove for 
 debts. 
 
 creditors is estopped from relying on the alleged act' 
 of bankruptcy the other may succeed 5 . Assent or 
 acquiescence may be variously expressed or shown . 
 There is no assent where there is misrepresentation 
 or fraud 7 , or if the deed is fraudulent against the 
 assenting creditor, as where it gives an unknown 
 advantage to another creditor or to the debtor 8 ; but 
 there may be assent, if there is no fraud, even when 
 the deed does not bind the petitioning creditor". Assent 
 to a proposed deed is revocable by the creditor until 
 the execution of the deed 10 . 
 
 A creditor who is estopped from petitioning on an 
 assignment may, where not bound by the deed, petition 
 on an independent act of bankruptcy 1 . 
 
 It has been held that creditors who are other- 
 wise bound by the deed and so prevented from found- 
 ing petitions on it are not necessarily precluded from 
 proving in bankruptcy proceedings brought by a credi- 
 tor not a party to the deed. It is a question of intention 
 as to whether the release was intended to be a release 
 in any event. Generally it is no*t so ; and the creditors 
 
 "Ex parte Associated Newspapers Co. in re Jones Bros. (1912), 3 
 K. B. 234 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 1178 ; 107 L. T. 236 ; 56 Sol. J. 751 ; 19 Mans. 
 349. 
 
 "In re Beesley (1913), 109 L. T. 910; In re Day ex parte Hammond 
 (1902), 86 L, T. 238; Ex parte and in re Michael (1891), 8 Mor. 305; 
 In re Walker (1910), 26 T. L. R. 260; Ex parte Bidgway in re Hawley 
 (1897), 76 L. T. 501; 4 Mans. 41; Ex parte and in re Woodroff (1S97), 
 76 L. T. 502 ; 4 Mans. 46; Ex parte Collier in re Crow (1907), 97 L. T. 
 140 ; 51 Sol. J. 593 ; 14 Mans. 279. A solicitor retained to sue a debtor 
 has no authority to assent to the execution by the debtor of a deed of 
 assignment: In re A hebtor (No. 1 of 1914) . (1914), 2 K. B. 758; 
 83 L. J. K. B. 1176 ; 110 L. T. 944 ; 58 Sol. J. 416 ; 21 Mans. 155. 
 
 'Ex parte Perrier in re Tanenberg (1889), 37 W. R. 480; 60 L. T. 
 270 ; 6 Mor. 49 ; Dauglish v. Tennent (1866), L. B. 2 Q. B. 49 ; 36 L. J. 
 Q. B. 10; 15 W. B. 196; In re and ex parte Milner (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 
 605 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 425 ; 53 L. T. 652 ; 33 W. R. 867. 
 
 "Ex parte Marshall, 1 M. D. & D. 575 ; Blackloch v. Dobie (1876), 
 1 C. P. D. 265 ; Ex parte Hallowell, 3 M. & A. 538. 
 
 'Ex parte Viney in re Adamson (1894), 43 W. B. 192; 71 L. T. 
 579 ; 2 Mans. 153 ; and of. Ex parte Taylor in re Brindley, supra. 
 10 Ex parte Associated Newspaper Co. in re Jones, supra. 
 
 '■Ex parte and in re Mills (1906), 1 K. B. 389; 75 L. J. K. B. 247; 
 94 L. T. 41; 54 W. R. 322; 13 Mans. 9; Ex parte and in re Stray 
 (1867) , L. R. 2 Ch. 374 ; 36 L. J. Bank. 7 ; 16 L! T. 250 ; 15 W. R. 600; 
 Ex parte and in re Sunderland (1911) , 2 K. B. 658 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 825; 
 105 L. T. 233 ; 55 Sol. J. 568 ; 18 Mans. 123 ; and see Ex parte and in re 
 Woodroff, supra; Ex parte Ridgway in re Hawley, supraj and see notes 
 to section 4(3). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 99 
 
 can prove. It might be held to be otherwise if there Section 3(b) 
 were obviously an intention to divide all the property ~ 
 among a small group of creditors 2 , or if there were a 
 secret illegal bargain between the debtor and the 
 creditor 3 . 
 
 3 (6) If in Canada or elsewhere he makes a Fraudulent 
 
 fraudulent conveyance, gift, delivery, r conveyance - 
 transfer of his property, or of any part 
 thereof ; 
 
 Cross References Act: Property defined 2(dd) ; assignment of 
 goods with intent to defraud, defeat or delay creditors is an act of bank- 
 ruptcy 3(g) ; for meaning of "or elsewhere," see notes to section 3(a). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. 1 (1)(6). Cf. 
 Canadian Act, 1875, s. 3(d). 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Fraudulent against creditors. 
 
 Distinguish 3(c) and 3(g). 
 
 Fraudulent conveyances of two classes. 
 
 First class : Cases contrary to general policy of the bankruptcy law. 
 
 Such transactions voidable only not void. 
 
 Meaning of fraudulent. 
 
 Protection of innocent transferee. 
 
 Intent inferred. 
 
 'Sale of all debtor's property to a. company. 
 
 Assignment for past debt and present or future advance. 
 
 Test to be applied in cases of an advance. 
 
 Insufficient equivalents. 
 
 Assignment of part only of debtor's property. 
 Second class of fraudulent conveyances : 
 (a) Provincial law on the lines of 13 Eliz. c. 5. 
 
 'Cases within 13 Eliz. c. 5. 
 
 Instructions to jury. 
 
 Right of creditor to have deed set aside under 13 Eliz. 
 (5) Provisions of the Civil' Code of Quebec, 
 (c) Other provincial enactments. 
 Griminal dispositions of property. 
 
 A fraudulent conveyance under the section means Fraudulent 
 one fraudulent against creditors, not purchasers 4 . creditors. 
 Cases arising under this section must be distin- Distinguish 
 
 3(c) and 
 'Ex parte 0. B. in re Stephenson (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 540; 57 L. J. 3(ff). 
 
 Q. B. 451 ; 36 W. R. 624 ; 58 L. T. 589 ; 5 Mor. 44. 
 
 'Ex parte Phillips in re Harvey (1888), 36 W. R. 567; Ex pa-rte 
 
 and in re Myers (1908), l.K. B. 941; 77 L. J. K. B. 386; 15 Mans. 85; 
 
 In re Cross (1848) , 4 DeG. & Sm. 364 n; Ex parte Oliver m re Hodgson 
 
 (1848), 4 DeG. & S. 354; Mayhew v. Boyes (1909), 103 L. T. 1. 
 
 4 Ex parte Luckes in re Wood (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 302, 307 ; 41 L. J. 
 Bank. 21. 
 
100 
 
 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Fraudulent 
 conveyances 
 of two 
 classes. 
 
 Section 3(b) guished from those under 3(c), which have to do with 
 fraudulent preferences. Under 3(&), the conveyance 
 will generally (though not always) be of the whole 
 of the property of the debtor; while under 3(c), the 
 assignment is generally only of a part of his property. 
 There may also be cases of a debtor disposing of his 
 goods with intent to defraud his creditors which do not 
 fall within 3(b), but which can be brought within 3(g). 
 Fraudulent conveyances may be of two classes :— 
 
 1. Those contrary to what has been called the gen- 
 eral policy of the bankruptcy law, as expressed in this 
 section*-; and 
 
 2. Those whjch have been declared to be fraudulent 
 by Provincial statute. Provincial law on this matter 
 is, it is conceived, Valid, so long at least as there is 
 not repugnant Dominion legislation 6 . Such Provincial 
 law may be the equivalent of 13 Eliz. c. 5 ; or articles 
 1032-1040 of the code in the Province of Quebec; or 
 possibly unrepealed sections of Provincial Acts 
 respecting voluntary assignments and preferences 7 . 
 
 The first class of cases under section 3(6), is that 
 class of case which has been said to be contrary to the 
 general policy of the bankruptcy law. The scope of 
 section 3(b) and the effect of cases on it is indicated 
 by its forbear : Jac. 1, c. 15, which reads : — 
 
 " if any trader shall make or cause to be made any fraudulent 
 grant or conveyance of his lands, tenements, goods or chattels 
 to the intent or whereby his' creditors shall or may be defeated 
 or delayed for the recovery of their just and true debts he 
 shall be adjudged a bankrupt 8 ." 
 
 That Act did not, nor does the present Act expressly 
 make such grant or conveyance void. It was, however, 
 
 5 There may be some difficulty in determining the applicable principle. 
 See chap. iv. ante. The Bankruptcy Act contains no general declaration, 
 of what are to be regarded as fraudulent conveyances. Compare section 
 29 ; and the section dealing with fraudulent preferences, section 31. 
 See also as to possible provisions regarding companies, section 66(2). 
 
 "The Voluntary Assignments Case; Attorney-General (Ont.) v. At- 
 torney-General -(Can.) (1894), A. C; 189 ; 63 L. J. P. C. 59. 
 
 'See Rickaoy v. Bell (1878), 2 S. C. R. 560; per Patterson, J., in 
 Edgar Central Bank (1888), 15 O. A. R. 202; Stevens v. McirtUr 
 (1891), 19 S. C. R. 446, 457 ; Thome v. Torrance (1866), 16 U. C. C. P. 
 445 ; 18 U. O. C. P. 29. 
 
 8 See as to verbal changes in previous sections : In re Wood em pa™ 
 Luckes (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 302; 41 L. J. Bank. 21; 26 L. T- W< 
 20 W. R. 403. 
 
 First class 
 cases con- 
 trary to 
 general 
 policy of the 
 bankruptcy 
 law. 
 
 Such trans- 
 actions void- 
 able only, 
 not void. 
 
I'.IAY \ \ 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. ,Q2; / 101 
 
 avoided by the relation back of the title of the tWgt^e. Section »(b) 
 It is only by such relation back that the transaction^ ' 
 avoided in England 9 . The position nnder The Bank- 
 ruptcy Act has yet to be decided. See notes to section 
 3 supra. 
 
 The word "fraudulent" in this sub-section has come Meaning of 
 to have a technical meaning. It does not necessarily fraudlllent 
 contain the idea of a common law fraud, or of even 
 moral fraud. The fraud meant is a fraud against 
 creditors 3 ; an attempt to evade the bankruptcy laws; 
 such as the putting of the property of the debtor 
 into a channel of distribution different from that 
 contemplated by the Act*, or the sale to an execu- 
 tion creditor of property seized under execution when 
 the debtor knew that he was insolvent 5 , or a scheme of 
 successive unregistered bills of sale 6 , or where as a 
 device to evade the bankruptcy laws a mortgagor and a 
 mortgagee contract that the mortgagor shall be tenant 
 to the mortgagee 7 , or an agreement that on the bank- 
 ruptcy of the debtor the security of the creditor shall 
 be increased 8 , or a contract that a man's property, 
 or a portion of his property such as building mater- 
 ials 9 , shall remain his until his bankruptcy, and then 
 
 8 Per Wright, J., in In re Slotodinsky ex parte Moore (1903), 2 
 K. B. 517 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 883 ; 89 L. T. 190 ; 52 W. R. 156 ; 19 T. L. E. 
 616, 651 ; 10 Mans. 341 ; Ex parte 0. R. in re Hirth (1899) , 1 Q. B. 
 612 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 287, 293 ; 80 L. T. 63 ; 47 W. R. 243 ; 15 T. L. R. 
 153; 6 Man. 10; Ex parte Games in re Bamford (1879), 12 Ch. D. 314, 
 325 ; 40 L. T. 789 ; and see notes to section 3, supra. Certain transac- 
 tions may fall within the Criminal Code, see infra p. 110. 
 
 'Sielert v. Spooner (1836), 1 M. & W. 714. 
 
 * In re and ex parte Cranston (1892), 9 Mor. 160; hi re Sharp, 
 Gundry & Johnston (1900), 83 L. T. 416; Ex parte Chaplin in re Sin- 
 clair (1884), 26 Ch. D. 319 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 732 ; 51 L.'T. 345. 
 
 'Ex parte Pearson in re Mortimer (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 667; 42 L. J. 
 Bank. 44 ; 28 L. T. 796 ; 21 W. R. 688. 
 
 'Ex parte Furoer in re Pellew (1877), 6 Ch. D. 181. Such a scheme 
 may not invalidate the security as such when there is no bankruptcy law 
 in force : McAllister v. Forsyth (1885) , 12 S. C. R. 1, 14. 
 
 ' Ex parte Voisey in re Knight (1882), 21 Ch. D. 442; 52 L. J. Ch. 
 121; Ex parte Jackson in re Bowes (1880), 14 Ch. D. 725; Ex. parte 
 Williams in re Thompson (1877), 7 Ch. D. 138; 47 L. J. Bank. 26; 
 In re Stockton Iron Furnace Co. (1878), 10 Ch. D. 335; 48 L. J. Ch 
 417. 
 
 'Ex parte Mackay & Brown in re Jeavons (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 643- 
 42 L. J. Bank. 68 ; 28 L. T. 828 ; 21 W. R. 664. 
 
 'Ex parte Jay in re Harrison (1880), 14 Ch. D. 19, but distinguish 
 Brown v. Bateman (1867) , L. R. 2 C. P. 272 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 134 ; In re 
 Waugh ex parte Dickm (1876), 4 Ch. D. 524; 46 L. J. Bank, 26. 
 
102 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Protection 
 of innocent 
 transferee. 
 
 Intent 
 .inferred. 
 
 Section 3(b) go to some one else 10 , or an assignment of so much of 
 ~the debtor's property as will prevent him from carry- 
 ing on trade in the usual manner 1 , or an assignment 
 of the whole of a debtor's property to a particular 
 creditor 2 . 
 
 Where the transferor has such a fraudulent intent 
 and the transferee is innocent the latter will be pro- 
 tected under section 32 3 ; but he will not be protected 
 if he has knowledge of circumtsances which should 
 indicate an intent to evade the bankruptcy laws 4 . 
 
 In certain cases the intent is inferred, as where 
 the natural result of the transaction is to defeat or 
 delay creditors 5 . Such a case would be where the 
 'debtor assigned for a past debt all his property"; or 
 substantially the whole of his property 7 , because the 
 
 10 Higinhotham v. Holme (1S11), 19 Ves. 88, dis. Denny's Trustee: 
 Denny v. Warr (1918-19), B. & C. R. 139. 
 
 1 Ex parte Bailey in re Barrett (1853) , 17 Jur. 475 ; 3 DeG. M. & G. 
 534; 22 L. J. Bank. 45. 
 
 2 Worsley v. De Mattos (1758), 1 Burr. 467; see as to a sale out of 
 the usual course of business of all the stock-in-trade of a debtor, Brooks 
 v. Taylor (1876), 26 U. C. C. P. 443; CooA; v. CaUecott (1830), 1 Moo. 
 & Mai. 522, and -the purchase of land by a debtor in the name of his 
 brother: Miller v. McQuaig (1901), 13 M. L. R. 220. 
 
 3 Shears v. Goddard (1896), 1 Q. B. 406; 65 I,. J. Q. B. 344; 
 74 L. T. 128 ; 44 W. R. 402 ; 3 Mans, 24 ; Ex parte Waller in re Dunkley 
 & Son (1905) , 2 K. B. 683 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 963 ; 54 W. R. 171 ; 12 Mans. 
 384; and see In re Badham ex parte Palmer (1893), 69 L. T. 356; 10 
 Mor. 252. 
 
 i In re Jukes ex parte O. R. (1902), 2 K. B. 58; 71 L. J. K. B. 710; 
 86 L. T. 456 ; 50 W. R. 560 ; 9 Mans. 249 ; Munro v. Standard Bank of 
 Canada (1913) , 30 O. L. R. 12 ; In re Sharp ex parte Gundry it Johnston 
 (1900), 83 L. T. 416. 
 
 "Per Horridge, J., in In re David & Adlard or Johnson ex parte 
 Whinney (1914), 2 K. B. 694; 83 L. J. K. B. 1173; 110 L. T. 942; 21 
 Mans. 148; In re Wood ex parte Luckes (1872 1 ), L. R. 7 Ch. 302, 306; 
 41 L. J. Bank. 21 ; Harrison v. Cohen (1875), 32 L. T. 717. 
 
 '& parte Foxley inre Nurse (1868), h. R. 3 Ch. 515; 16 W. K. 
 831; 18 t. T. 862; Ex parte Burton in re Tunstall (1879), 13 Ch. D. 
 ]02 ; 41 L. T. 571 ; 21 W. R. 268 ; Ex parte and in re Ellis (1S76), 2 Oh. 
 D. 797 ; 45 L. J. Bank. 159 ; 34 L. T. 705 ; Ex parte Luckes in re Wood 
 (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 302; 41 L, J. Bank. 21; 26 L. T. 113; 20 W. B. 
 403; Ex parte Boon in re Boon. (1879), 41 L. T. 42; Bittleston v. Cook 
 (1856) , 25 L. J. Q. B. 281 ; Lomax v. Buxton (1870), L. R. 6 C. P. 107; 
 40 L. J. C. P. 150 ; 24 L. T. 137 ; 19 W. R. 441 ; Ex parte Snowball in re 
 Douglas (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 534; 41 L. J. Bank. 49; 26 L. T. 894; 
 20 W. R. 786 ; distinguish the case of permission given to a lienholder 
 to sell what afterwards turned out was the whole of the property of the 
 debtor: Philps v. Hornstedt (1872), L. R. 8 Ex. 26; 42 L. J. Ex. 12. 
 
 7 Ex parte Barton in re Phillips (1900) , 2 Q. B. 329i 69 L. J. Q. B. 
 604 ; 82 L. T. 691 ; 49 W. R. 16 ; 7 Mans. 277 ; In re Rayment ex parte 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 103 
 
 result must inevitably be to defeat and delay creditors 8 , Section 3(b) 
 unless indeed the assignment is the carrying out of a _ 
 contract previously made where valuable consideration 
 passed, the giving of the bill of sale or other security 
 not being purposely postponed until the circumstances 
 of the debtor become hopeless 9 . 
 
 Similarly where there is a sale by a debtor of all Sale of ail 
 his assets to a company with the result that the credi- property to 
 tors are defeated or delayed, intent is in some cases a company " 
 inferred 10 . A sale of the whole of the debtor's pro- 
 perty is not necessarily an act of bankruptcy 1 , but the 
 consideration obtained by the debtor must be avail- 
 able for the creditors 2 , though the consideration need 
 not be of the full value of the property 3 . The same 
 principle applies to mortgages of the property of the 
 debtor 4 , for the advance even of a small portion of 
 
 Parkes (1899), 80 L. T. 807; 6 Mans. 288; Ex parte Foxley in re Nurse 
 (1868), L. R. 3 Ch. 515 ; 18 L. T. 862 ; 16 W. R. 831 ; Ex parte Burton 
 in re Tunstall (1879), 13 Ch. D. 102; 41 L. T. 571; 21 W. R. 268; 
 Hale v. Allnutt (1856), 25 L. J. C P. 267 ;Ex parte Trevor in re Burg- 
 hardt (1875), 1 Ch. D. 297; 45 L. J. Bank. 27; 33 L. T. 765; 24 W. R. 
 301; Ex parte Hawker_ in re Keely (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 214; 41 L. J. 
 Bank. 34 ; 26 L. T. 54 ; 20 W. R. 322 ; Smith v. Cannan (1853) , 22 L. J. 
 Q.-B. 290; 2 E. & B. 35. 
 
 8 Mercer v. Peterson (1868), L. R. 3 Ex. 104; 37 L. J. Ex. 54. 
 
 fiercer v. Peterson (1S68), L. R. 3 Ex. 104; 37 L. J. Ex. 54; 
 In re Jackson & Bassford, Ltd. (1906), 2 Ch. 467; 75 L. J. Ch. 697; 
 
 13 Mans. 306; In re Ash ex parte Fisher (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 636; 41 
 L. J. Bank. 62 ; 26 L. T. 931; 20 W. R. 849; Jones v. Harber (1870), 
 L. R. 6 Q, B. 77 ; Ex parte Kilner in re Barker (1879) , 13 Ch. ©. 245 ; 
 41 L. T. 520; Harris v. Rickett (1859), 28 L. J. Ex. 197 ; 4 H. & N. 1. 
 See as to a promise to give security, Foster v. Russell (1886), 12 Or R. 
 136. 
 
 10 In re David & Johnson or Adlard ex parte Whinney (1914), 2 
 K. B. 694 ; 83 L. J. K. B. 1173 ; 110 L. T. 942 ; 58 Sol. J. 340 ; 21 Mans. 
 148; and see Ex parte Moore in re Slobodinsky (1903), 2 K. B. 517; 
 72 L. J. K. B. 883 ; 89 L. T. 190 ; 52 W. R. 156 ; 10 Mans. 341 ; Ex parte 
 O. R. in re Hirth (1899), 1 Q. B. 612 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 287 ; 80 L. T. jS3 ; 
 47 W. R. 243; 6 Mans. 10; In re Wheatley's Trustee (1901), S5_L. T. 
 491, and distinguish In re Harris ex parte Trustee (1906), 54 W. R. 460 ; 
 
 14 Mans. 127; Rielle v. Reid (1899), 26 O. A. R. 54. See as to a sale 
 of part of the assets, in re Gunsbourg ex parte Trustee No. 2 (1918-19), 
 B. & C. R. 108 ; In re Herman (1915), H. B. R. 41, and see as to sale 
 fraudulent under 13 Eliz. e. 5, Gonville's Trustee v. Patent Caramel Co. 
 (1912), 1 K. B. 599; 81 L. J. K. B. 291; 19 Mans. 37. , 
 
 1 Baxter v. Pritchard (1834), 1 A. & E. 456; Rose v. Haycock 
 (1827), 1 A: & E. 460; In re Colemere (1865), L. R. 1 Ch. 128, 133- 
 35 L. J. Bank. 8; 13 L. T. R. 21. 
 
 2 See In re David & Johnson or Adlard ex parte Whinney, supra ■ 
 Smith v. Cannan (1853), 22 L. J. Q. B. 290 ; 2 E. & B. 35. 
 
 3 Pennell v. Reynolds (1861), 11 C. B. N. S. 709; 5 L. T. 286. 
 i Bittlestone v. Cooke (1856), 6 E & B. 296 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 281. 
 
104 
 
 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 3(b) 
 
 Assignment 
 for past 
 debt and 
 present or 
 future ad- 
 vance. 
 
 Test to be 
 applied in 
 cases of 
 an advance. 
 
 the value of the property pledged may be of -more ad- 
 vantage to the trader and his creditors than the pro- 
 perty itself 5 . The advance is also looked upon as the 
 equivalent of a substantial exception reserved for the 
 debtor from the property assigned such as might 
 enable him to carry on his trade with advantage 8 . 
 
 Following the same line of reasoning it is now estab- 
 lished that an assignment of all the property of a 
 debtor for a past debt, and a present or future advance, 
 is not as a conclusion of law and without proof of an 
 intent to evade the bankruptcy laws a fraudulent con- 
 veyance 7 , and this is so • even though the promise to 
 make further advances does not appear in the deed, 
 if there be an actual promise and if the advance is. in 
 fact made 8 . But the transaction will not be protected 
 by the mere fact that advances were made, even if 
 they were in the contemplation of the parties at the 
 time 9 , where the grantor did not choose to bind himself 
 in any way to make them 10 - 
 
 As to the greatness or smallness of the advance it 
 was first held that the advance should be a. fair equiva- 
 lent of the property transferred 1 , and that the small- 
 ness of the advance would be strong evidence that the 
 advance was made not to enable the debtor to continue 
 his trade, but to secure the past debt 2 . But in Ex 
 parte and in re King 3 , it was said that whether or not 
 the further advance is intended to give colour to a 
 security made for the purpose of securing a pre-exist- 
 ing debt, is a question of fact; and this suggests the 
 
 s Bittlestonev. Cooke, supra. 
 , "Lomax v. Buxton (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 107; 40 h. J. C. P. 150; 
 Ex parte and in re Ellis (1876), L. R. 2 Ch. D. 797. 
 
 1 Mercer v. Peterson (1868) , L. R. 3 Ex. 104 ; 37 L. J.. Ex. 54. The 
 Thames (1890), 63 L. T. 353. 
 
 8 Ex parte Sheen in re Winstanley (1S76), 1 Ch. D. 290. 560; 45 
 L. J. Bank. 14, 89. Contrast Ex parte Chaplin in re Sinclair (1884), 
 26 Ch. D. 319 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 732. 
 
 'Ex parte Dann in re Parker (1881), 17 Ch. D. 26; 51 L. J. Ch. 
 290 ; Union v. Sharp (1843), 6 M. & G. 895. 
 
 10 Ex parte Dann in re Parker supra; Ex parte Wilkinson in re 
 Berry (1882), 22 Ch. D. 788; 52 L. J. Ch. 657. 
 
 1 Mercer v. Peterson (1868), U R. 3 Ex. 104; 37 L. J. Ex. 54. 
 
 2 Ex parte Fisher in re Ash (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 636; 41 h. 3. 
 Bank. 62. 
 
 3 (1876), 2 Ch. D. 256. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 105 
 
 present rule, which, while taking into consideration section 3(b) 
 the greatness or smallness of the advance, does not ~ 
 consider that to be the real test. The real test is 
 said to be : Did the lender intend that the advance 
 should enable the debtor to carry on his business, and 
 had he a reasonable ground for believing that it would 
 enable him to do so 4 . 
 
 The general rule being that an assignment of all insufficient 
 the property of a debtor for a past debt is an act of 
 bankruptcy, there is not a sufficient equivalent to take 
 the case out of this rule, when all that the Creditor does 
 is to give the debtor time, or to refrain from proceed- 
 ing with an execution 5 , or a seizure under an expiring 
 bill of sale 6 , or to give him a secret verbal promise 
 to pay certain debts of the debtor, where that promise 
 is contradicted by the terms of the deed 7 . But there 
 may be a sufficient equivalent if in addition to the past 
 debt there is a further supply of goods on credit to 
 enable the debtor to carry on business 8 , or a release of 
 goods stopped in transitu 9 , or the assumption of the 
 debtor's liability on trade bills 10 . 
 
 Where there is a conveyance of a part only as dis- Assignment 
 tinguished from the whole or substantially the whole °f debtor^ 
 of a debtor 's property to secure a past debt there is no P r °P ert y- 
 presumption of law or fact that such an act is a 
 fraudulent conveyance 1 , but fraud in the sense in which 
 this has already been denned must be proved 2 , and it 
 must be shown that the grantee was a party to the 
 
 * Ex parte Johnson in re Chapman (1884), 26 Ch. D. 338; 53 L. J. 
 Ch. 762; Administrator General of Jamaica v. Lascelles (1894), A. C. 
 135; 1 Mans. 163; ex parte and in re Ellis (1876), 2 Ch. D. 797; Ross 
 V. Dunn (1889), 16 O. A. R. 552; Risk v. Sleeman (1874), 21 Grant 
 250 ; Kalus v. Hergert (1876) , 1 O. A. R. 75. 
 
 1 Woodlwuse v. Murray (1868), L. R. 4 Q. B. 27; Ex parte Cooper 
 in. re Bourn (1878) , 10 Ch. D. 313 ; 48 L. J. Bank. 54. 
 
 'Ex parte Payne in re Cross (1879), 11 Ch. D. 539. 
 
 ''Ex parte Chaplin in re Sinclair (1884), 26 Ch. D. 319; 53 L. J. 
 Ch. 732. 
 
 8 Ex parte Sheen in re Winstanley (1876) , 1 Ch. D. 560 ; 45 L. J. 
 Bank. 89. 
 
 ' Ex parte Threfall in re Williamson (1876) , 46 L. J. Bank. 8 ; 35 
 L. T. 675. 
 
 10 Ex parte Reed in re Tweddell (1872), L. R. 14 Eq. 586. 
 
 *It may be a fraudulent preference. See notes to section 3(c). 
 
 * Ree Ex parte Pearson in re Mortimer (1873) , L. R. 8 Ch. 667 ; 
 42 I, J. Bank. 44 ; 28 L. T. 796 ; 21 W. R. 688. 
 
106 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 3(b) fraud 3 ; though this is au inference. of fact to be drawn 
 
 from all the circumstances of the case 4 . 
 Second class A discussion of the second class of cases of fraudu- 
 eonveyances. lent conveyances, so far as they fall within the opera- 
 tion of Provincial laws, is outside the scope of this 
 work. Such cases will fall mainly within the three 
 divisions of: — 
 
 (a) Provincial law on the lines of 13 Eliz. c. 5. 
 (6) Provisions of the Civil Code of the Province 
 of Quebec respecting the avoidance of contracts 
 and payments made in fraud of creditors, 
 (c) Other specific Provincial enactments with 
 respect to fraudulent conveyances. 
 (a) (a) Provincial law on the lines of 13 Eliz. c. 5, is 
 
 lawo'nthe to be found in all the Provinces of Canada, except 
 13 Mif. c. 5. Quebec 5 . 13 Eliz. c. 5, reads in part : — 
 
 "For the avoiding ... of feigned, covinous and 
 fraudulent . . . gifts, grants . . . conveyances . . . 
 and executions as well of lands and tenements as 
 of goods and chattels . . . : which . . . gifts, grants 
 . . . conveyances . . . and executions . . . are ... to 
 the . . . intent to delay, hinder or defraud creditors 
 and others of their just and lawful actions, suits, 
 debts, . . . and reliefs ... Be it therefore . . . enacted 
 . . . that all and every . . grant, gift . . . and con- 
 veyance of lands, tenements, hereditaments, goods 
 and chattels or any of them or any lease, rent, 
 common or other profit out of the same . . . and all 
 and every . . . bond, suit, judgment, and execution 
 . . . that . . . is . . . made to or for any intent or pur- 
 
 3 Ex parte and in re Cranston (1892), 9 Mor. 160; and see Ex parte 
 Furoer in re Pellew (1877), 6 Ch. D. 192; In re Gunsbourg ex parte 
 Trustee No. 2 (1918-19), B. & C. R. 108. 
 
 *Lee v. Bart, 25 L. J. Ex. 135; 11 Ex. 880; In re Herman (1915), 
 H. B. R. 41. 
 
 • See the following Statutes: Ontario, R. S. O. 1914, c. 105; Mani- 
 toba, R. S. M. 1913, c. 74 ; British Columbia, R. S. B. C. 1911, c. 93. 
 
 In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island it is con- 
 sidered that 13 Eliz. c. 5 is part of the statute law taken with them by 
 the settlers at the time of settlement. See Lefroy, Constitutional Law of 
 Canada, p. 52, ed. 1918. As to Alberta, Saskatchewan and North-West 
 Territories, see : The North- W«st Territories Act, R. S. C. 1887, c. 60, 
 s. 11, which introduces the Laws of England in civil and criminal 
 matters as of July 15th, 1870. In the Yukon the same law is applicable, 
 see Yukon Territory Act, 61 Vic. c. 6. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 107 
 
 pose before declared and expressed, . shall be . . .Section 3(b) 
 deemed . . . only as against that person ... his ~ 
 heirs . . . and assigns . . . whose actions, suits, debts, 
 accounts, damages . . . and reliefs . . . are . . . dis- 
 turbed, hindered, delayed or defrauded to be clearly 
 and utterly void, frustrate and of none effect. . . . 
 Provided . . . that this Act . . . shall not extend to 
 any estate or interest in lands . . . goods or chat- 
 tels had made, conveyed, or assured . . . which 
 estate or interest . . . shall be upon good considera- 
 tion and bona fide . . . conveyed ... to any person 
 . . . not having at the time of such conveyance . . . 
 any . . . notice or knowledge of such covin, fraud or 
 collusion as is aforesaid. ' ' 
 
 The Statute has been interpreted to mean that if 
 the deed is bona fide — that if it is not a mere cloak for 
 retaining a benefit to the grantor — it is a good deed 6 . 
 It has no regard whatever to the question of prefer- 
 ence or priority among the creditors of the debtor 7 , 
 nor is it material under the Statute whether the deed 
 deals with the whole or only a part of the grantor's 
 property 8 . 
 
 The following very brief summary of the law will 
 be found useful in deciding whether any particular 
 set of facts falls under 13 Eliz. c. 5, or not. 
 
 The dominant question is whether the conveyance cases within 
 was made with intent to delay or defraud creditors in 13 Ellz - °- 5 - 
 the sense in which that phrase has already been defined. 
 Intent must be clearly proved. To this end the sur- 
 rounding circumstancs can be looked at. The effect 
 of the debtor remaining in possession is significant, 
 but it may be explained, as where the transaction is a 
 
 'Per Giffard, L.J., in Alton v. Harrison (1869), B. R. 4 Ch. 622; 
 28 L. J. Ch. 669. 
 
 'Per Jessell, M.R., in Middleton v. Pollock (1876), 2 Ch. D. 104, 
 108, 109 ; Glegg v. Bromley (1912) , 3 K. B. 4T4, 485, 492 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 
 1081; New, Prance & Garrard's Trustee v. Hunting (1897), 2 Q. B. 19; 
 Maskelyne & Cooke v. Smith (1903), 1 K. B. 671; 72 L. J. K. B. 237; 
 10 Mans. 121. 
 
 "Per Giffard, L.J., in Alton v. Harrison (1869), L. R. 4 Ch. 622, 
 626 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 669 ; In re Bamford, 12 Ch. D. 314 ; In re and ex parte 
 Cranston (1892), 9 Mor. 160, 167; but see Ex parte O. R. in re Hirth 
 (1899) , 1 Q. B. D. 612, 620 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 287 ; 80 L. T. 63 ; 47 W. R. 
 243 ; 6 Mans. 10. 
 
108 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 3(b) mortgage, or. possession by the vendor is consistent 
 with the deed. It must also be shown that the trans- 
 feree had knowledge of the fraud 9 , except where the 
 conveyance is voluntary 10 . Where a voluntary settle- 
 ment is made on the eve of engaging in trade, the 
 burden rests on the settlor of shewing that he was in 
 a position to make it 1 . There is not necessarily want 
 of bona fides if the debtor is deliberately preferring 
 particular creditors; for he has a common law right 
 so to do 2 . A dissolution of a partnership when the 
 partners are insolvent may. be mala fide, as regards 
 creditors 3 , and so may a transfer to a company of all 
 the property of a firm or debtor 4 . 
 
 The fact that valuable consideration passes will 
 not validate a transaction, if bona fides is absent 5 ; but 
 if there is valuable consideration fraud must be proved 
 in order to invalidate it 6 . In order to set aside a vol- 
 untary deed it is not necessary that the settlor should 
 have been in a state of insolvency when making the 
 deed. Intent is all that is required. In the case of a 
 voluntary settlement intent will be inferred if the 
 transaction has a necessary tendency to defeat and 
 
 'Ex -parte 0. R. in re Hirth (1899), 1 Q. B. 612; 68 L. J. Q. B. 
 287; 47 W. R. 243; 80 L. T. 63 ; 6 Mans. 10; Fraser v. Thompson 
 (1859), 4 DeG. & J. 659; Campion v. 'Cotton (1810), 17 Ves. 263; 
 Bulmer v. Hunter (1869), L. R. 8 Eq. 46; 38 L. J. Ch. 543; 20 L. T. 
 942 ; Kevan v. Crawford (1877) , 6 Ch. D. 29 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 729 ; 37 L. T. 
 322; 26 W. R. 49; In re and ex parte Pennington (1888), 59 L. T. 
 774 ; 5 Mor. 268 ; Ex parte Games in re Bamford (1879), 12 Ch. D. 314, 
 322. 
 
 10 Oliver v. McLaughlin (1893) , 24 O. R. 41 ; and see Sun Life Assur- 
 ance Co. v. Elliott (1901), 31 S. C. R. 91. 
 
 1 McKay v. Douglas (1872), L. R. 14 Eq. 106; 41 L. J. Ch. 539; 
 McGuire v. Ottawa Wine Vaults Co. (1913), 48 S. C. R. 44; Ex parte 
 Russell in re Butterworth (1882) , L. R. 19 Ch. D. 588 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 521; 
 Alexandria Oil Co. v. Cook (1909), 14 O. W. R. 604. 
 
 2 Mulcahy v. Archibald (1898), 38 S. C. R. 523. 
 
 'Ex parte Mayou in re Wood (1865), 4 DeG. J. & S. 664; 11 Jur. 
 (N.S.) 433 ; 34 L. J. Bank. 25 ; Pearce v. Bulteel (1916), 2 Ch. 544. 
 
 4 Gonville's Trustee v. Patent Caramel (1912), 1 K. B. 599; 81 h. J. 
 K. B. 291 ; 105 L. T. 831 ; 19 Mans. 37 ; Ex parte Silverstone v. <Mdr 
 burg (1912) , 1 K. B. 384 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 382 ; 105 L. T. 959 ; 19 Mans. 
 44. 
 
 'Holmes v. Penney (1856), 26 L. J. Ch. 179; 3 K & J. 90; Barman 
 v. Richards (1853) , 22 L. J. Ch. 1066. 
 
 "In re David & Adlard or Johnson ex parte Whinney (1914), 2 
 K. B. 694 ; 83 L. J. K. B. 1173 ; 110 L. T. 942 ; 21 Mans. 148 ; In re 
 Johnson, Golden v. Gillam (18S1), 20 Ch. D. 389; 51 L. J. Ch. 154; 
 46 L. T. 222. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 109 
 
 delay creditors; while there must be evidence of actual Section 3(b) 
 or express intent in cases where valuable consideration 
 has passed 7 . 
 
 As- to the instruction of a jury in suits to set aside instructions 
 conveyances contrary to 13 Eliz. c. 5, see Griffiths v. t0;iury - 
 Boscowits 8 . 
 
 In Ontario where a creditor sues to set aside under Right of 
 the Statute of Elizabeth a fraudulent conveyance, he havedeed" 
 must sue on behalf of all the creditors unless he has ^defil 
 "first obtained judgment and execution. When he sues Eliz. 
 on behalf of all creditors his relief will be confined to 
 setting aside the fraudulent conveyance, leaving him 
 to take independent proceedings if he wishes to have 
 execution against the property so fraudulently con- 
 veyed 9 . He cannot in the same suit have judgment 
 against the defendant for his debt 10 . 
 
 (b) The provisions' of the Civil Code of the Prov- (6) 
 ince of Quebec with respect to the avoidance of con- ome'civii 
 tracts and payments made in fraud of creditors are j^f^ 
 to be found in Articles 1032-1040 11 . 
 
 7 See generally as to 13 Eliz. c. 5, May on Fraudulent and Voluntary 
 Conveyances (Stevens and Haynes) and Twyne's Case I., S. L. C, vol. I., 
 p. 1 ; Snider's annotations to R. S. O. 1914, L -. 105: (The Carswell Co., 
 Ltd.) 
 
 8 1891, Cameron's Supreme Court Cases, 239. 
 
 ' Oliver v. McLaughlin (1893), 24 O. R. 41. 
 
 10 Urquhart v. Aird (1905), 6 O. W. R. 115, 506 ; Tierney v. Slattery 
 (1906), 7 O. W. R. 489. 
 
 11 These are : 
 
 Art. 1032. Creditors may in their own name impeach the acts of 
 their debtors in fraud of their rights, according to the rules provided in 
 this section. N. 1167— c. 484, 655, 745, 803, 2023, 2187. 
 
 Art. 1033. A contract cannot be avoided .unless it is made by the 
 debtor with intent to defraud and will have the effect of injuring the 
 creditor. 
 
 Art. 1034. A gratuitous contract is deemed to be made with intent 
 to defraud if the debtor be insolvent at the time of making it. 
 
 Art. 1035. An onerous contract made by an insolvent debtor with a 
 person who knows him to be insolvent is deemed to be made with intent 
 to defraud. 
 
 Art. 1036. Every payment by an insolvent debtor to a creditor 
 knowing his insolvency, is deemed to be made with intent to defraud, 
 and the creditor may be compelled to restore the amount or thing received 
 or the value thereof, for the benefit of the creditors according to their 
 respective rights. 
 
 Art. 1037. Repealed by the Federal Act respecting the Revised Sta- 
 tutes of Canada — 49 Vic. c. 4, s. 5, Schedule A. (2nd June, 1886) — 
 R. S. Q. (1888), Art. 6233. (This Article formerly read: "Further 
 provision concerning the presumption of fraud and the nullity of acts 
 
110 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 (e) 
 Other Pro- 
 vincial en- 
 actments. 
 
 Criminal 
 dispositions 
 of property. 
 
 Section 3(b) (c) Other specific Provincial enactments with 
 respect to fraudulent conveyances are to be found in 
 the various Provincial Voluntary Assignments and 
 Preferences Acts 12 . 
 
 Section 417(a)(6) of The Criminal Code 13 reads: 
 417. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence 
 and liable to a fine of eight hundred dollars and to one 
 year's imprisonment who,— 
 
 (a) with intent to defraud his creditors, or any of. 
 them, 
 
 (i) makes, or causes to be made any gift, con- 
 veyance, assignment, sale, transfer, or deliv- 
 ery of his property, or 
 (ii) removes, conceals or disposesof any of his 
 property, or 
 (&) with the intent that any one shall so defraud 
 his creditors, or any of them, receives any 
 such property. 
 
 It has be«n held in a prosecution under this section 
 that it is not essential that at the time of the sale the 
 
 done in contemplation of insolvency are contained in The Insolvent Act 
 of 1864.) 
 
 Art. 1038. An onerous contract made with intent to defraud on the 
 part of the debtor, but in good faith on the part of the person with whom 
 ht contracts, is not voidable. ; saving the special provisions applicable in 
 case of insolvency of traders.^C. 803, 2023, 2085, 2090. 
 
 Art. 1039. No contract or payment can be avoided by reason of any- 
 thing contained in this section, at the suit of a subsequent creditor, unless 
 he is subrogated in the rights of an anterior creditor. 
 
 Art. 1040. (No contract or payment can be avoided by reason of any 
 thing contained in -this section, at the suit of any individual creditor, 
 unless such suit is brought within one year from the time of his obtain- 
 ing a knowledge thereof. If the suit be by assignees or other repre- 
 sentatives of the creditors collectively, it must be brought within a year 
 from the time of their appointment) . 
 
 "These are: Ontario, R. S. O. (1914), c. 134, amended 1914, c. 21. 
 Nova Scotia, R. S. N. S. (1900), c. 145 ; 1901, c. 34; 1902, c. 12; 19034, 
 c. 31 : 190S, q. 21 ; 1913, c. 28. s. 17 ; 1914, cc. 37, 38 ; 1917, c. 38. 
 New Brunswick, C.S. N. B. (1903), c. 141 ; 1911, c. 40. Prince Edward 
 Island, 1S98. c. 4; 1899, c. 14; 1905, c. 9; 1906, c. 11. Manitoba, 
 R. S. M. (1913), c. 12 (and see 13) ; 1913-14, c. 6; 1915(2), c. 1; 
 1919, c. 7. British Columbia, R. S. B. C. (1911), c. 13; 1913, c. 3; 
 1914, c. 3; 1915, c. 8. Alberta, 1907, c. 6; 1916, c. 3, s. 32; 1918, c. i, 
 s. 9. Saskatchewan,- R. S. S., 1909, c. 142; 1912, c. 42, s. 22; 1912-13, 
 c. 19 ; 1914, c. 20, s. 6 ; 1915, c. 43, s. 22 ; 1916, c. 37, s. 21. Yukon, 
 C. O. T., 1902, c. 38 ; 1914, c. 73 ; 1916, c. 1. North-West Territories, 
 C. O. N. W. T., 1898, c. 42 ; 1900, c. 11. 
 
 13 R. S. C. 1906, c. 146. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. Ill 
 
 debt of the creditor should be due 14 . The depositions of Section 3(c) 
 a judgment-debtor on his examination may be used in - 
 evidence against him on a charge under this section 
 unless at the time of the examination he objected to 
 answer on the ground that his answers might tend to 
 criminate him 15 . 
 
 3 (c) If in Canada or elsewhere he makes any Fraudulent 
 conveyance or transfer of his property r pr€ference - 
 any part thereof, or creates any charge 
 thereon, which would under this Act be void 
 as a fraudulent preference if he were ad- 
 judged bankrupt ; 
 
 Cross References Act: Fraudulent preference denned 31 ; con- 
 tract 3(6) (g) ; for meaning of "or elsewhere," see notes to section 3(a) ; 
 property denned 2(dd). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. 1(1) (c). 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 A preference is not void at common, law or under Statute of 
 Elizabeth. * 
 
 Whether the statutory definition alone may be looked at. 
 Whether a fraudulent preference is avoided as an act of bankruptcy. 
 
 The words ' ' which would under this Act be void as 
 a fraudulent preference" are very much narrower 
 than the words in section 3(&), and may limit acts of 
 bankruptcy under section 3(c) to cases falling pre- 
 cisely within the scope of section 31. 
 
 Apart from The Bankruptcy Act 1 , both at common a preference 
 law and under the Statute of Elizabeth, a conveyance ^ common 
 to a creditor with a view to giving him a preference i?w or under 
 
 . . , ., „ a a ^ Statute of 
 
 is unimpeachable . Elizabeth. 
 
 It has been said in England that in determining 
 
 ; U R. v. Henry (1891), 21 O. R. 113. 
 
 15 R. v. Tan Meter (1906), 11 Can. Cr. C. 207, and see generally on 
 . the section: R. v. Potter (1560), 10 TJ. C. C. P. 39; R. v. Shaw (1899), 
 31 N. S. E. 534; R. v. Ayoup (1910), 39 N. B. R. 598; 16 Can. Cr. C. 
 ! 375. 
 
 1 And similar legislation, such as the Winding-up Act and Provincial 
 t Assignments Acts. 
 
 !' *Ex parte Games in re Bamford (1879), 12 Ch. D. 314; Glegg v. 
 
 ; Bromley (1912), 3 K. B. 474, 485, 492; 81 L. J. K. B. 10S1 ; Middleton 
 
 v. Pollock (1876) , 2 Ch. D. 104, 108, 109 ; Alton v. Harrison, L. R. 4 Ch. 
 622. 
 
112 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 3(c) what amounts to a fraudulent preference the court 
 Whether the ought now to have regard simply to the statutory 
 finUioi^aione definition contained in the equivalent of section 31; 
 looLdat. previous decisions may be useful as guides, but the 
 standards there laid down must not be substituted 
 for that which is laid down in the Act 3 . In Canada 
 there is no Dominion law respecting fraudulent pre- 
 ferences other than that contained in The Bank- 
 ruptcy Act and the Winding-TJp Act, but there are 
 provincial enactments respecting fraudulent prefer- 
 ences. 
 
 In the notes to section 3 supra, the point has 
 already. been raised whether a fraudulent preference 
 which is an available act of bankruptcy may be avoided 
 after the period mentioned in section 31. A similar 
 situation existed under The English Bankruptcy Act 
 of 1869. By section 6(2) of that Act, a fraudulent 
 conveyance, gift, delivery or transfer was made an 
 act of bankruptcy 6 , and such an act of bankruptcy was 
 available as a foundation for a petition for six 
 months after it took place?. Section 92 of the same 
 Act introduced a legislative definition of a fraudulent 
 ( preference and declared that such a preference should 
 be avoided as against the trustee if the debtor were 
 adjudged bankrupt within three months after the 
 transaction. 
 
 It is not proposed here to speculate on the result. 
 Section 32 is made "subject to the foregoing pro- 
 visions of the Act with respect to the avoidance of 
 certain settlements and preferences." This appears 
 to refer to section 31; and not to section 3(c), or to 
 any doctrine of interpretation of that section. 
 
 °Ex parte Griffith in re Wilcooson (1883), 23 Ch. D. 69; 52 L. J. 
 Ch. 717 ; see Brayley v. Ellis (1884) , 9 O. A. R. 565, 590. 
 
 " This was said to include a fraudulent preference. See per Mellish, 
 L.J., in Ex parte Halliday in re Liebert (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 283, 288; 
 and see Allen v. Bonnett (1870), D. R. 5 Ch. 570; Robson Bankruptcy, 
 3rd edition, 1876, p. 123, notes (d) and (e). 
 
 ' Section 6, but see In re Liverpool & London Guarantee & Accident 
 Insurance Co., Gallagher's Case (18S0), 46 L. T. 54^30 W. R. 378. 
 Contrast Ex parte Games in re Bamford (1879), 12 Ch.'D. 314. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 113 
 
 3 (d) If with intent to defeat or delay his credi- section 3(d) 
 tors he does any of the . following things, Absconding, 
 namely, departs out of Canada, or, being out 
 of Canada, remains out of Canada, or de- 
 parts from his dwelling house or otherwise 
 absents himself, or begins to keep house ; 
 
 Analogous Legislation': English Act, 1914, s. 1(1) (d) ; Cana- 
 dian Act, 1875, s. 3(6). 
 
 Analysis of Notbs. 
 
 Intent. 
 
 Intent to defeat or delay. 
 
 Intent alone not enough. 
 
 Onus of proof. 
 
 Amendments. 
 
 Departs out of Canada. 
 
 Remains out of Canada.. 
 
 Departs from his dwelling house. 
 
 Otherwise absents himself. 
 
 Begins to keep house. 
 
 As to the difference in intent under this sub-section intent, 
 and under 3(a)(6)(c), see In re Wood 9 The intent 
 must be specifically alleged 10 , .and there must be such 
 intent 1 . The intent is the intent of the debtor; it 
 does not depend on the intent of the creditor 2 , and it 
 is a question of fact whether the debtor intends to 
 defeat or delay the creditors 3 . Thus a letter by the 
 bankrupt may be put in to prove intent 4 , and where 
 the debtor knows that the necessary consequence of his 
 conduct will be to defeat or delay certain creditors, he 
 will be held to have acted with that intent 5 . Whether 
 the circumstances are such that the debtor can be said 
 to have foreseen the consequences of his act will depend 
 on the facts of the case 6 . Failure to keep an appoint- 
 
 ' (1872), L. R. 7 Ch.*302; 41 L. J. Bank. 21. 
 
 10 Ex parte. Coates in re Bkelton (1877), 5 Ch. D. 979; 37 L. T. 46; 
 25 W. R. 800. 
 
 1 Ex parte Osborne v. Parr (1813), 1 Rose, 387. 
 
 'Ex parte White (1814), 3 V, & B. 128; Ex parte Harris (1814), 
 2 Rose, 67, and see Mucklow v. May (1809), 1. Taunt. 479. 
 
 'In re Woolstenholme ex parte Foster (1887), 4 Mor. 258. 
 
 'Rouch v. G. W. Ry. (1841), 1 Q. B. 51 ; 4 Perry & Davidson, 686. 
 
 "Ex parte Goater in re Finney (1874), 30 L. T. 620; Ex parte 
 Kilner in re Bryant (1837), 3 M. & A. 722; Holroyd v. Whitehead 
 (1814), 3 Camp. 530. 
 
 ° Ramsbottom v. Lewis (1808), 1 Camp. 279. 
 
 B.c— 8 
 
114 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 3(d) ment at the house of a creditor to pay money due on a 
 dishonoured bill is prima facie evidence of intent to 
 defeat or delay one's creditors; and the onus lies on 
 the debtor to prove that he had no such intent 7 . 
 
 An intent to begin to keep house on the happening 
 of a contingency should be distinguished from an actual 
 beginning to keep house. The former is not an act of 
 bankruptcy ; nor it seems, is a departure from a dwell- 
 ing house, not with an absolute, but with an inchoate 
 intent to delay creditors, an act of bankruptcy 8 . 
 
 rntent to An intent to delay should be distinguished from an 
 
 delay* ° r intent to defeat. Thus there may be a keeping house 
 by a debtor with intent to delay creditors, in order 
 to give himself time to get money to clear his liability. 
 This would not be intent to defeat; but it is an act of 
 bankruptcy 9 . Proof of actual delay is unnecessary. 
 There is an act of bankruptcy where the absenting is 
 with intent, even though no creditor was delayed, and 
 none could possibly have been delayed 10 . 
 
 intent alone In addition to proof of intent there must be. proof 
 
 enoug . Q £ one or more Q £ ^g ac £ g se .j. 011 ^ ^ n sec tJ on 3(d). A 
 
 mere direction to be denied, not followed up,by shutting 
 the doors or retreating to a different part of the house, 
 or actual denial, is not in itself an act of bankruptcy 1 . 
 Onus of Where notwithstanding the ordinary presumption 
 
 proof. ^ n f avour f iif e th e question arises on the facts proven 
 
 whether the missing man has run away from his 
 creditors, or is dead, semble, the onus is on the peti- 
 tioning creditors to prove that he is alive 2 . In England 
 when there has been no allegation of intent, and an 
 Amendments, adjudication made, there can be no amendment ; it is 
 otherwise before adjudication 3 . 
 
 * Ex parte Meyer in re Stephany (1871), L. R. 7 Ch. 188; 41 L. J. 
 Bank 33 ; 25 L. T. 733 ; 25 W. R. 173. 
 
 "Fisher v. Boucher (1830), 10 B. & C. 705. 
 
 'Richardson v. Pratt (1885), 52 L. T. 614. 
 
 w Chenoweth v, Say (1S13), 1 M. & S. 676; Williams v. Nunn 
 (1809), 1 Taunt. 270. 
 
 1 Eare v. Waring (1838), 3 M. & W. 362. 
 
 'Ex parte Geisel in re Stanger (1882), 22 Ch. D. 436; 53 L. J. Ch. 
 349; 48 L.. T. 405; 31 W. R. 264. See in re Lewis ex parte Becker 
 (1893), 10 Mor. 141. 
 
 8 In re Fiddian Squire & Co. (1892) , 66 L. T. 203 ; 9 Mor. 95. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 115 
 
 If a domiciled Englishman, who has been pressed Section 3(d) 
 by his creditors, and is served with a writ, leaves Departs out 
 England, that fact would be strong evidence that he of 0anada - 
 intended to defeat or delay his creditors. The same 
 reasoning does not apply to a foreigner who has gone 
 to England for a temporary purpose and leaves to 
 return to his own home*, and where a domiciled Eng- 
 lishman has a permanent residence in Prance at which 
 he lives, subject to occasional visits to England, the 
 fact that he resides abroad is not alone sufficient to 
 impute to him an intention to defeat or delay his credi- 
 tors 5 . 
 
 Whether or not the going abroad was an act of Remains out 
 bankruptcy, the remaining abroad with intent to defeat ana a ' 
 creditors is a continuing act of bankruptcy, available 
 as a foundation for a petition 6 . 
 
 As to what amounts to departing, see CharringtonVepartsfrom 
 v. BrQwri 1 and Ex parte Austen 8 - It is a question of house"* n " 
 fact whether the departure is with intent to defeat or 
 delay 9 . Five furnished rooms on the third and fourth 
 floors of a house may be a dwelling house 10 . 
 
 If a trader with intent to avoid the creditor absents otherwise 
 himself from any place to which he knows a creditor himself . 
 is coming, he commits an act of bankruptcy 1 . A 
 fortiori, if with the same intent he fails to keep an 
 appointment with creditors with reference to a settle- 
 ment of their demands whether the meeting places 
 
 f Ex parte and m re Crispin (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. App. 374, 382; 42 
 L. J. Bank. 65 ; 28 L. T. 483 ; 21 W. R. 491; Ex parte and in re 
 Gutierrez (1879), L,. R. 11 Ch. D. 298 ; 43 L. J. Rank 79 ; 40 L. T. 355 ; 
 27 W. R. 497. 
 
 'Ex parte Brandon in re Trench (1884), 25 Ch. D. 500; 53 L. J. 
 Ch. 576 ; 50 L. T. 41 ; 32 W. R. 601. Contrast In re and ex parte Camp- 
 bell (1887), 4 Mor. 198 ; and see generally Ex parte Goater in re Finney, 
 supra; Ex parte Ktlner in re Bryant, supra; Ex parte Ramsbottom in re 
 Lewis, supra. 
 
 'In re and ex parte Bunny (1857), 1 ODeG. & J. 309. 
 
 7 (1826), 11 Moore 341. 
 
 8 (1837), 2 Dea. 533. 
 
 'In re Woolstenholme ex parte Foster (1887), 4 Mor. 258; In re 
 and ex parte McKeand (1889), 6 Mor. 240. 
 
 10 In re and ex parte Heoquard (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 71 ; 38 W. R. 
 148; 6 Mor. 282; and see Eolroyd v. Gwynne (1809), 2 Taun. 176; 
 1 Rose, 113; and notes to 2(o). 
 
 1 Curteis v. WUlis (1824), 1 Car. & P. 211; 6 D. & R. 244; Ry & 
 M. 58. 
 
116 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 3(d) were at the debtor's usual place of business or not". 
 Where there has been such a failure to keep an appoint- 
 ment the onus lies on the debtor to prove he had no 
 such intent 3 . Where a debtor keeps his appointment, 
 but leaves before the meeting is over, the presumption 
 is the same*. 
 
 It has also been held that the words "otherwise 
 absents himself" mean an absenting of himself from 
 his creditors, not from a particular place; so that a 
 debtor who was present at the meeting place, but told 
 a friend to tell his creditors he was not there, absented 
 himslf from the creditors'*. ' 
 
 Where a married woman leaves her place of busi- 
 ness without paying her creditors or notifying her 
 change of address, and there is evidence to show an 
 intent to evade service, there is an absenting within the 
 section, even though she left at her husband's request 
 in order to live with him elsewhere. 6 
 
 Absenting one's self is a continuing act of bank- 
 ruptcy'. 
 Begins to A person who goes to his home, gives directions to 
 
 '"''"' deny him to anyone who calls, and continues nearly a 
 
 month in his bedroom, begins to keep house, or other- 
 wise absents himself 8 . An actual denial to a creditor 
 is not essential 9 . If there is a denial, there must be 
 evidence connecting the debtor with the denial 10 . But 
 this can be done by showing that the debtor in his own 
 house hears himself denied to a creditor and does 
 not come forward. This is an act of bankruptcy if 
 done with intent to delay creditors, even though he 
 
 2 Russell v. Bell (1842), 10 M. & W. 340; Ex parte Meyer in re 
 Stephany (1871), L,. R. 7 Ch. 188; 41 L. J. Bank. 33; 25 E. T. 733; 
 20 W. R. 173; Cf. Lees v. Marton (1832), 1 M. & R. 210.. 
 
 "Ex parte Meyer in re Stephany, supra. 
 
 4 In re and ex parte Dean (1841), 2 M. D. & D. 127. 
 
 5 Qillingham v. Laing (1810) , 6 Taunt. 532 ; In re Alderson ex parte 
 Jackson (1895), 1 Q. B. 183; 64 L. J. Q. B. 188; 1 Mans. 495; but see 
 Bernasconi v. Farebrother (1830), 10 B. & C. 549, 556, 557. 
 
 'In re Worsley (1901), 1 K. B. 309 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 93 ; 49 W. R. 
 182 ; 84 L. T. 100 ; 8 Mans. 8. 
 
 ' Jre re Alderson ex parte Jackson, supra. 
 
 *Bayly\. Schofield (1813), 1 M. & S. 338. 
 
 8 Bayly v. Schofield, supra, per Bayley, J., p. 353 ; Clements v. lie- 
 Kibbin (1857), 2 H. & N. 62 ; Key v. Shaw (1832), S Bing. 320; 
 Richardson v. Pratt (1885), 52 L. T. 614. 
 
 M Ex parte and in re Curtis (1893), 9 T. L. R. 387; Ex p. Foster 
 (1810), 17 Ves. 416; 1 Rose, 50. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 117 
 
 has given no directions, to be denied. The question Section 3(e) 
 of intent is one of fact 1 . - If a debtor gives a general 
 order to be denied, and is denied to a creditor, it is a 
 beginning to keep house, though he immediately over- 
 takes the creditor and says he is not afraid of him, but 
 of another creditor, for the denial was general, and 
 did not except any creditor 2 . Where the creditor is 
 denied when the debtor is at dinner, there is no act of 
 bankruptcy if the intention is to avoid interruption at 
 that hour and not to delay the creditor, although the 
 creditor is delayed 3 ; similarly a denial at 11 o 'clock at 
 night cannot be said to be done with intent to defeat or 
 delay 1 
 
 Where a creditor calling at the debtor's house 
 merely asks payment and does not ask to see the debtor, 
 a denial of payment is no evidence of a beginning to 
 keep house 5 , aliter where the debtor has withdrawn 
 from the counting house to a room upstairs with a 
 view to avoiding the personal solicitation of creditors 6 . 
 
 3 (e) If he permits any execution or other pro- Execution- 
 cess issued against him under which any of goods'soidV 
 his goods are seized, levied upon or taken in ^j^te" 
 execution to remain unsatisfied until within found, 
 four days from the time fixed by the sheriff 
 for the sale thereof, or for fourteen days 
 after such seizure, levy or taking in execu- 
 tion, or if the goods have been sold by the 
 sheriff or the execution or other process has 
 been held by him after written demand for 
 payment without seizure, levy or taking in 
 execution or satisfaction by payment for 
 fourteen days, or if it is returned endorsed 
 to the effect that the sheriff can find no goods 
 
 1 Smith v. Moon (1829), Moo. & Malkyns, 458; Lloyd & Heathcote 
 (1820), 2 Bjod. & Bing. 388. 
 
 'Mucklow v. May (1809), 1 Taunt. 479. 
 
 'Smith v. Currie (1813), 1 Rose, 364; 3 Camp. 349. 
 
 'Ex parte Sail (1753), 1 Atkyns, 201. 
 
 'Dudley v. Vaughan (1808), 1 Camp. 271. But see E.t parte White 
 (1814), 3 V. & B. 128; Ex parte Harris (1814), 2 Rose 67. 
 
 "Dudley v. Vaughan, supra. 
 
118 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 3(e) 
 Proviso. 
 
 Whether 
 acts of 
 bankruptcy 
 mentioned 
 in 3 (e) are 
 void. 
 
 Sale of goods 
 by sheriff. 
 
 whereon to levy or to seize or take; pro- 
 vided that where interpleader proceedings 
 have been instituted in regard to the goods 
 seized, the time elapsing between the date at 
 which such proceedings were instituted and 
 the date at which such proceedings are 
 finally disposed of, settled or abandoned, 
 shall not be taken into account in calculating 
 < any such period of fourteen days ; 
 
 Cross References Act: Goods defined 2(g) ; sheriff denned 2(M). 
 Consider the effect of 8(2) ; execution against married woman 2(v), 
 75, and see notes to 2(o). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: Canadian Act, 1875, s. 3(fc) ; English 
 Act, 1914, s. 1(e). 
 
 ANALYSIS OF NOTES. 
 
 Whether acts of bankruptcy mentioned in 3(e) are void. 
 
 Sale of goods by sheriff. 
 
 Computation of time. 
 
 No seizure, but written demands for payment. 
 
 In England an act of bankruptcy such as is men- 
 tioned in section 3(e) of The Bankruptcy Act, is not a 
 void proceeding merely because it is an act of bank- 
 ruptcy; for in the first place it is not an act of the 
 bankrupt, being a proceeding in invitum; and in the 
 second place the relation back of the title of the trustee 
 is only to the moment after the completion of the trans- 
 action where that proceeding is a proceeding in 
 invitum 7 . 
 
 Hence the fact that the suffering of a levy by seizure 
 and sale is an act of bankruptcy does not avoid or 
 make inoperative the seizure and sale itself 8 . But if 
 the sheriff has been in possession for fourteen days 
 before sale, the execution creditor must be taken to 
 have had notice of that fact within section 40 of the 
 English Act of 1914°. And where there are two exe- 
 
 7 Ex parte Villars in re Rogers (1874), Tj. R. 9 Ch. 432; 43 L. J. 
 Bank 76. See further section 11(2). 
 
 «Ex parte Villars in, re Rogers (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 432; 43 L. J. 
 Bank 76, decided before the English section which corresponds to 
 section 11(2) of the Canadian Act was passed. . In such cases, however, 
 section 11(1) may apply. See Heathcote v. Livesley (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 
 285 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 645. 
 
 "Figg v. Moore (1894), 2 Q. B. 690; 63 (L. J. Q. B. 709; 1 Mans. 
 404. Trustee of Burns-Burns v. Brown (1895), 1 Q. B. 324; 64 L. J. 
 Q. B. 248 ; 2 Mans. 23. Our Act contains no exact parallel to section 40. 
 The nearest approach to it is section 11(1). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 119 
 
 cutions by the same creditor under each of which there Section 3(e) 
 is a seizure and sale, the creditor must as regards the 
 second be taken to have had notice of the act of bank- 
 ruptcy constituted by the first 10 . 
 
 The sheriff cannot make a valid contract for the 
 sale of goods until he has actually seized them 1 . 
 
 Under the English practice, where a sheriff under 
 an execution sells the goods of a debtor by private con- 
 tract with the consent of the debtor, but without the 
 leave of the court as required by section 145 of the 
 Act of 1883 (46 & 47 Vic. c. 52), the sale is, until set 
 aside by the court, valid as against a subsequent exe- 
 cution creditor 2 . 
 
 The payment out by a debtor of an execution on his 
 goods is not a "sale" 3 . 
 
 There is no universal common law rale in the Computation 
 reckoning of time, each case depending on its own cir- ° time ' 
 cumstances and subject-matter 4 . The question as to 
 whether the day on which the act is done is to be 
 included or excluded may depend on whether it is to 
 the benefit or disadvantage of the person primarily 
 interested. The question of whether the Statute men- 
 tions a terminus is important 5 . 
 
 In computing the length of time during which the 
 goods of the debtor must have been held by the sheriff 
 •for an act of bankruptcy to have taken place, the day 
 on which the seizure is made is to be excluded 6 . 
 
 Under the English Act the holding by the sheriff 
 of the goods of the debtor for twenty-one days after 
 seizure constitutes an act of bankruptcy. But if the 
 
 10 Ex parte Dawes in re Husband, (1875) , L. R. 19 Eq. 438 ; 44 L. J. 
 Bank 62. 
 
 x Ex parte Sail in re Townsend (1880), 14 Ch. D. 132 ; 42' L. T. 162. 
 
 'Crawshaw v. Harrison (1894), 1 Q. B. 79; 63 L. J. Q. B. 94 ; 1 
 Mans. 407. 
 
 3 In re Pearson ex parte West Cannock Colliery (1S86), 3 Mor. 
 187, and see Ex parte Pearson in re Mortimer (1873), I>. R. 8 Ch. 667; 
 42 L. J. Bank 44. 
 
 'Lester v. Garland (1809), 15 Ves. 248; Isaacs v. Royal Insurance 
 Co. (1870), L. R. 5 Ex. 296; In re Railway Sleepers Supply Co. (1885), 
 L. R. 29 Ch. D. 204. 
 
 "Pet Rigby, L.J., in Ex parte Hasluch in re North (1895), 2 Q. B. 
 264 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 694 ; 2 Mans. 326. 
 
 "Ex parte Hasluch in re North, supra. As to the meaning of 
 section 82 with respect to the computation of time, seie S. C. 
 
120 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Sections 
 3(f), 3(g) 
 
 No seizure 
 but -written 
 demand for 
 payment. 
 
 Exhibits 
 statement 
 allowing 
 insolvency. 
 
 Intent to 
 defraud 
 
 sheriff continues in possession and no- adjudication of 
 . bankruptcy is made within the three months allowed by 
 the English Act, the remaining in possession is not a 
 continuous act of bankruptcy, nor is it, a repeated act 
 of bankruptcy on the happening of each fresh period of 
 twenty-one days 7 . In calculating the fourteen days 
 after seizure mentioned in section 3(e), the whole of 
 the period occupied by the interpleader proceedings 
 (including the day on which the summons is taken out 
 and the day on which the order is made), is omitted 8 . 
 As to payment where there has been no seizure, see 
 Ex parte Brooke in reHassall 9 . 
 
 (/) If he exhibits to any meeting of his cre- 
 ditors any statement of his assets and lia- 
 bilities which shows that he is insolvent, or 
 presents or causes to be presented to any 
 such meeting a written admission of his 
 inability to pay his debts ;. 
 
 Cross References Act: 
 
 effect of 8(2). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: 
 
 Canadian Act, 1875, s. 3(a). 
 
 Insolvent denned 2((), consider the 
 
 English Act, 1914, s. 1(f) (g)(h). 
 
 This sub-section requires a much more formal and 
 definite act on the part of the bankrupt than the 
 corresponding section of the Act of 1875, under which 
 a mere acknowledgment of insolvency was sufficient. 
 
 The exhibition to a meeting of creditors of a state- 
 ment of assets and liabilities showing that the debtor 
 is insolvent cannot be given "without prejudice" 10 . 
 
 3 (g) If he assigns, removes, secretes or disposes 
 of or attempts or is about to assign, remove, 
 
 ' In re Beesion (1899) , 1 Q. B. 626 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 344 ; 6 Mans. 27. 
 
 3 Per Phillimore, J.. Mason, v. Bolton's Library Limited (1912), 2 
 K. B. 520; 81 L. J. K. B. 821; 19 Mans. 213; not reversed on this 
 point on appeal (1913), 1 K. B. 83; S2 L. J. K. B. 217; 20 Mans. 1. 
 
 (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 301; 43 L. J. Bank. 49, and Cf. Stock v. 
 Holland (1874), L. R. 9 Ex. 147; 43 L. J. Ex. 113; In re Pearson ex. 
 parte West Cannock Colliery Co. (1886), 3 Mor. 187.. 
 
 10 .In re Daintreij e.r parte Holt (1893), 2 Q. B. 116; 62 L. J. Q. B. 
 511 ; 10 Mor. 158. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 121 
 
 secrete or dispose of any of his goods with sections 
 
 intent to defraud, defeat or delay his credi- — — 
 
 tors or any of them ; 
 
 Cross References Act: Goods defined 2(s) ; contrast 3(a) (6) (c) ; 
 see as to bankruptcy offences 89 (d) (pi (/i). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: Canadian Acts, 1375, s. 3(c) (d) ; 1864, 
 s. 3(6) (c). 
 
 This section has been taken from The Insolvent 
 Act of 1875. To a certain extent it duplicates sections 
 3(a) (b)(c). It is in some respects narrower than the 
 Act of bankruptcy set out in section 3(a) ; in other 
 respects it is a widening of that section. Under 3(g) 
 the intent of the assignor must be established; this is 
 not necessary under 3(a). On the other hand an 
 assignment to fall under 3 ( a) must be of substantially 
 the whole. of the property of the debtor; while under 
 3(g) an assignment of any of the goods of the debtor 
 with the requisite intent is sufficient. The correspond- 
 ing section of the previous Canadian Act was not 
 limited to goods. Certain cases not within 3(6) or 3(c) 
 will no doubt be within 3(g). 
 
 A sale- for full consideration to a bona fide pur- 
 chaser is not made an act of bankruptcy within the 
 section by the refusal of the debtor to pay over the 
 proceeds to one j)f his creditors, where the debtor has 
 ample means to satisfy all claims against him 1 . 
 
 A transaction by which goods were assigned to a 
 company in return for debentures which Avould not be 
 available to the creditors generally would be within 
 this section if not within section 3(b) 2 . 
 
 For an example of an act of bankruptcy under this 
 section see In re The London Woolen Company 
 (Shainer et al) s . 
 
 3 (h) If he makes any bulk sale of his goods Bulk i 
 without complying with the provisions of 
 
 1 Royal Canadian Bank v. Matheson (1870), 6 TJ. C. L. J. N. S. 9, 
 and see Sharp & Secord v. Matthews (1869), 5 P. R. 10, and cases 
 cited in Royal Canadian Bank v. Matheson, supra. 
 
 2 In re David and Adlard ex parte Whinney (1914), 2 K. B. 894; 
 83 L. J. K. B. 1173 ; 21 Mans. 148. 
 
 ' (1921) 1 C. B. R. 432 (Delisle, D.R.) 
 
122 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 3(h) any Bulk Sales Act applicable to such goods 
 
 in force in the province within which he 
 carries on business or within which such 
 ' goods are at the time of such bulk sale. 
 
 Cross References Act: Goods defined, 2(g). 
 Analogous Legislation: Canadian Act, 1875, s. 3(;). 
 
 The Bulk Sales Acts are designed to prevent the 
 sale in fraud of creditors of, 
 
 (a) the whole or substantially the whole of the 
 stock-in-trade of a trader, manufacturer or such 
 like person ; or 
 
 (b) of goods, wares or merchandise sold out of the 
 ordinary course of business; or 
 
 (c) of an interest in. the business of the trader, 
 manufacturer or such like person. 
 
 Unless the regulations prescribed by The Bulk Sales 
 Acts are complied with, such sales are deemed fraudu- 
 lent and void as against creditors. The Acts for the 
 most part provide that on any bulk sale the purchaser 
 shall : — 
 
 (a) Obtain from the vendor a written statement 
 verified by statutory declaration, containing the 
 names, addresses and amounts of indebtedness 
 of each of the vendor's creditors. It is the 
 duty of the vendor to comply with this provi- 
 sion. 
 
 (6) Either obtain written waiver from the credi- 
 tors ; or pay over to a trustee for distribution 
 among the creditors of the vendor the purchase 
 money 5 . 
 
 Reference should be . made to the following Bulk Sales Acts : — 
 Ontario (1937), 7 Geo. V. c. 33; (1918), 8 Geo. V. c. 20, s. 60. 
 Quebec (1910), 1 Geo. V. c. 39; (1914), 4 Geo. V. c. 63; Code, Arts. 
 1569 A. & E. Nova Scotia (1913), 3 Geo. V. c. 5. Manitoba (1913), 
 R. S. M. c. 23; amended 1913-14, c. 13. British Columbia (1913), 3 
 Geo. V. c. 65. Alberta (1913), 4 Geo. V. c. 10; 1919, c. 38. Saskatch- 
 ewan (1913), 4 Geo. V. c. 34. 
 
 The following cases touch on the duty of the vendor: Rousseau v. 
 Heirs of A. J. Dulue, 25 D. L. R. 854 ; 47 Que. S. 0. 127 ; Walter v. 
 Leduc Lumler Co. (1915), 8 W. W. R. 360. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 123 
 
 Petition and Receiving Order. section 4 
 
 4 (1) Subject to the conditions hereinafter Bankruptcy 
 'specified, if a debtor commits an act of bank- petltlon - 
 ruptcy a creditor may present to the court a 
 bankruptcy petition. 
 
 (2) The petition shall be verified by affidavit Affidavit, 
 and served on the debtor in the prescribed 
 manner. 
 
 (3) A creditor shall not be entitled to present a Conditions 
 bankruptcy petition against a debtor un- ^ditornwiy 
 
 leSS, — petition. 
 
 (a) the debt owing by the debtor to the peti- 
 tioning creditor, or, if two or more cre- 
 ditors join in the petition, the aggregate 
 amount of debts owing to the several 
 petitioning creditors amounts to five hun- 
 dred dollars; and, 
 
 (&) the act of bankruptcy on which the 
 petition is grounded has occurred within 
 six months before the presentation of the 
 petition. 
 
 (4) The petition shall be presented to the court Court, 
 having jurisdiction in the locality of the 
 debtor. 
 
 (5) At the hearing the court shall require proof Proof of debt, 
 of the debt of the petitioning creditor, of the etc ' 
 service of the petition, and of the act of 
 bankruptcy, or, if more than one act of 
 bankruptcy is alleged in the petition, of 
 
 some one of the alleged acts of bankruptcy, 
 -and, if satisfied with the proof, may adjudge 
 the debtor a bankrupt and in pursuance of 
 the petition, make an order, in this Act 
 called a receiving order, for the protection 
 of the estate. 
 
 (6) If the court is not satisfied with the proof May dismiss 
 of the petitioning creditor's debt, or of the peW ? 0U - 
 act of bankruptcy, or of the service of the 
 
 .petition, or is satisfied by the debtor that he 
 is able to pay his debts, or, in case an auth- 
 orized assignment has been made, that the 
 
124 
 Section 4 
 
 Stay of _ 
 proceedings. 
 
 Receiving 
 order on 
 another 
 petition. 
 
 Petition 
 cannot foe 
 withdrawn. 
 
 Commence- 
 ment of 
 ■bankruptcy. 
 
 Proceedings 
 taken in 
 wroniv court. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 estate can be best administered, under the 
 assignment, or that for other sufficient cause 
 no order ought to be made, it shall dismiss 
 the petition. 
 
 (7) Where the debtor appears, on the petition, 
 and denies that he is indebted to the peti- 
 tioner, or that he is indebted to such an 
 amount as would justify the petitioner in 
 presenting a petition against him, the court, 
 on such security (if any) being given as the 
 court may require for payment to the peti- 
 tioner of any debt which may be established 
 against him in due course of law and of the 
 costs of establishing the debt, may, instead 
 of dismissing the petition, stay all proceed- 
 ings on the petition for such time as may be 
 required for trial of the question relating to 
 the debt. 
 
 (8) Where proceedings have been stayed or 
 have not been prosecuted with effect the 
 Court may, if by reason of the delay or for 
 any other cause it is deemed just so to do, 
 make a receiving order on the petition of 
 another creditor, and shall thereupon dis- 
 miss on such terms as it may deem just the 
 petition in the stayed or non-prosecuted pro- 
 ceedings. 
 
 (9) A creditor's petition shall not, after pre- 
 sentment, be withdrawn without the leave of 
 the court. 
 
 (10) The bankruptcy of a debtor shall be 
 deemed to have relation back to and to com- 
 mence at the time of the presentation of the 
 petition on which a receiving order is made 
 against him. 
 
 (11) Provided, however, that nothing herein 
 contained shall invalidate any proceedings 
 by reason of the same having . been com- 
 menced, taken or carried on in the wrong 
 court, but the court may at any time transfer 
 to the proper court the petition, application 
 or proceedings, as the case may be. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 12; 
 
 Cross References Act: Acts of bankruptcy, 3 ; available acts of Section 4 
 
 bankruptcy, 2(A), S(2) ; affidavit denned, 2(a) ; debtor denned, 2(o) ; 
 
 creditor denned, 2(m) ; proceedings in case of partnership or where 
 more respondents or petitions than one, 68(7), 69, 70; locality denned, 
 2(a) ; "province of debtor's locality", 6(4) ; authorized assignment, 9; 
 . relation back of title of trustee, 6(3), 25; interim receiver, 5 ; a receiving 
 order and adjudication may be made on the annulment of a composi- 
 tion 13(14) (15), or on the failure of a proposal for a composition, 
 13(3/) ; adjudication may be annulled on approval of composition, 
 13(18); evidence, 68.(6); Courts of Bankruptcy, 63, 74; style of 
 cause, 68(1) ; .by whom a corporation, . firm or lunatic may act, 85; 
 debt provable in bankruptcy defined, 2(h) ; debts provable, 44; petition 
 defined, 2(bb) ; annulment of adjudication, 62; stay of proceedings 
 under a petition, 68(10) ; substitution of petitioner, 08(8) ; continuance 
 of proceedings where debtor dies, 68(9) ; returns to Dominion Statisti- 
 cian, 24(2) (a) ; power to review, rescind or vary any order, 74(1). 
 
 Cross References Rule s : Petitions to be sealed, 10 ; proceedings 
 in petition generally, 74 to 84 ; hearing of petition, 87 to 91 ; receiving 
 order, 92 to 96 ; costs of petition, 55 ; name of solicitor to be endorsed 
 on, 50; .affidavits, 18, 26 to 33; security in court, 21 to 25; interim 
 receiver, 85, 86 ; transfer of proceedings to proper court, 11, 12. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Creditors' petition and notice of hear- 
 ing, 2 ; affidavit of truth of statements in petition, 3, 4 ; affidavit of 
 service of petition, 5 ; notice of substituted service of petition, 6 ; order 
 for substituted service of petition, 7 ; notice by debtor of intention to 
 oppose petition, 8; order to stay proceedings on petition, 9; bond on 
 stay of proceedings ; 1 ; surety, etc., 10 ; notice of sureties. 11 ; affidavit of 
 justification, 12 ; dismissal of. petition, 13 ; receiving order, 14 ; order 
 of transfer of proceedings, 16 ; general title, 1. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: Canadian Acts, 1873, ss. i to 16; 1869, 
 ss. 15-24, 2, 10 ; English Acts, 1914, ss. 3, 4, 5, 18 ; 1883, ss. 5, 6, 7, 20. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Who may present petition. 
 Who may petition. 
 
 Estoppel. • 
 
 Whether the " debt owing " must be presently payable. 
 
 And a liquidated sum. 
 
 Purchase of a debt. 
 Act of bankruptcy within six months of petition. 
 Proof of the debt — 
 
 A judgment not conclusive. 
 
 Disputed debt. 
 
 Tender. 
 
 Accord and satisfaction. 
 Whether the estate can best be administered under the assignment. 
 " Other sufficient cause " — - 
 
 (a) No assets. 
 
 (6) Destruction of assets. 
 
 (c) Property not immediately . available. 
 
 (d) Indirect motive. 
 
 (e) Only one creditor. 
 
 (f) Surety. 
 
 (g) (Debts not yet due. 
 
 (h) Previous application- for a receiving order refused. 
 Effect of receiving order and adjudication. 
 Where proceedings are stayed under section 4(7). 
 Withdrawal of petition under section 4(9). 
 
126 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 4 Section 4(10) — 
 Distinction between relation back of bankruptcy of debtor 
 
 and relation back of title of trustee. 
 Relation back of title of trustee. 
 Severity of the doctrine is mitigated by section 32 and two 
 
 rules followed by the court. 
 Incapacity of the debtor. 
 Right of debtor to sue — 
 
 Costs. 
 Position of agents of the debtor — 
 
 Appropriation for past services. 
 Dealings with trustee de son tort. 
 Repayment. 
 
 Adjudication conclusive. 
 Estoppel of trustee. 
 Rights of secured creditors. 
 Section 4(11) : Proceedings taken in wrong court. 
 
 Section 4 (2) Section 4(2) is given as it was enacted by section 
 4 of The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1920; Sec- 
 tions 4(6) and 4(10) are given in the form in which 
 they now stand as amended by sections 6 and 7 of The 
 Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921 1 . Section 4(8) 
 is in the form in which it was enacted by section 54 of 
 The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921. 
 
 In Ontario, nnder the provincial practice intro- 
 duced by Bule 152, only a solicitor or a petitioner him- 
 self may present a bankruptcy petition. Such a peti- 
 tion may not be presented by an authorized trustee for 
 a petitioner 2 . As to the authority of officers of a cor- 
 poration to present a petition, see section 85. 
 • 
 
 1 The previous sections read : 
 4(2) The petition shall be verified by affidavit of the creditor or of 
 
 some person on his behalf having knowledge of the facts, and be 
 served on the debtor in the prescribed manner. 
 
 4(6) If the court is not satisfied with the proof of the petitioning 
 creditor's debt, or of the act of bankruptcy, or of the service of 
 the petition, or is satisfied by the debtor that he is able to pay 
 his debts, or, in case an authorized assignment has been made, 
 that the estate can be best administered under the assignment, 
 or that for other sufficient cause no order ought to be made, it 
 may dismiss the petition. 
 
 4(8) Where proceedings are stayed, the court may, if by reason of 
 the delay caused by the stay of proceedings or for any other 
 cause it thinks just, make a receiving order on the petition of 
 some other creditor, and shall thereupon dismiss, on such terms 
 as it thinks just, the petition in which proceedings have been 
 stayed as aforesaid. 
 
 4(10) The bankruptcy of a debtor shall be deemed to have relation 
 back to and to commence at the time of the service of the 
 petition on which a receiving order is made against him. 
 
 2 In re X (1920) , 1 C. B. R. 459 ; 19 O. W. N. 12 (Holmested, R.) ; 
 contrast In re Shaw (1920), 19 O. W. N. 153 (Holmested, R.). The 
 petition is presented to the Court on the day of the filing thereof, Rule 76. 
 
 Who may 
 
 present 
 
 petition. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 127 
 
 Creditor for the purpose of this section is not Section 4 
 defined in the Act 3 . The word does not include the who may 
 garnishor of a debt due from the debtor 4 , but it includes petition, 
 the equitable assignee of a part of a debt; and such 
 assignee is not required to join the persons interested 
 in the remainder of the debt as co-petitioners or 
 respondents 5 . The endorser of a discounted bill of 
 exchange is not such a creditor of the acceptor that he 
 can because of his liability to pay the bill if the acceptor 
 make default, present a petition against the acceptor 6 . 
 
 Semble, an infant creditor can take proceedings 
 in bankruptcy, though if an application be made by the. 
 debtor to have some adult named to give security for 
 costs, the application would no doubt be successful 7 . 
 The holder of a general power of attorney may peti- 
 tion in the name of the creditor 8 . Where a debt is 
 vested in a mere trustee for an absolute beneficial owner 
 the trustee cannot sustain a petition without joining 
 the cestui que trust 9 ; but where as to part of the debt 
 the petitioning creditor was trustee for another person 
 who had not joined as co-petitioner, and had not given 
 Ms consent, the cestui que trust did not require to be 
 joined 10 . Where one of three creditors to whom a joint 
 debt is due has died the two survivors may present a 
 petition against the debtor 1 . 
 
 If several creditors unite in a petition, they must 
 stand or fall together 2 . Where 'a tender of the amount 
 of his debt, is made to one of the creditors whose debt 
 is necessary to make the aggregate of five hundred 
 
 3 See section 2(ro). 
 
 * In re Combined Weighing and Advertising Machinery Company 
 (1889) „43 Ch. D. 59 L. J. Ch. 26. 
 
 "In re Steel Ring Co. (1920), B & C. R. 160. 
 
 '. In re Thomas (1921) 1_C. B. R. 473 ; 20 0. W. N. 180 (Ode, J.) . 
 
 7 Ex parte Brocklebank (1877), 6 Ch. D. 358; 46 L. J. Bank. 113. 
 "Ex parte and in re Wallace (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 22 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 
 
 293; 1 Mor. 246. 
 
 8 Ex parte Gnlley in re Adams (1878) , 9 Ch. D. 307 ; 47 L. J. Bank. 
 97; Ex parte Dearie in re Hastings (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 184; 54 L. J. 
 Q. B. 74; 1 Mor. 281 ; In re Ellis ex parte Hinshelwood (1887), 4 Mor. 
 283. 
 
 10 In re and ex parte Oamgee (1891), 60 L. J. Q. B. 574; 8 Mor. 162. 
 
 1 In re and ex parte Tucker (1895), 2 Mans. 358. See as to a joint 
 petition by money lenders In re and ex parte Debtor (No. 5 of 1919) 
 (1918-1919), B. & C. R. 282. 
 
 2 Ex parte Kibble in re Onslow (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 373; 44 L. J. 
 Bank. 63; Ex parte Gill in re Shaw (1901), 83 L. T. 754; 49 W. R 
 264. 
 
128 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Estoppel. 
 
 Section 4 dollars, this does not prevent an adjudication 3 , nor does 
 a payment into court by the debtor of the amount due 4 , 
 for the creditor has a right to refuse the tender after 
 knowledge of the act of bankruptcy 5 , and should he 
 accept it, he may be required later to pay over suck 
 moneys to the trustee 6 . There is no provision in The 
 Bankruptcy Act such as is found in section 4(2) of the 
 English Act of 1914, with respect to petitions by 
 secured creditors 7 . 
 
 A creditor may be estopped from relying on a par- 
 ticular act of bankruptcy in presenting his petition. 
 Thus, where a creditor assents to an assignment of 
 the debtor's property for the benefit of his creditors, 
 or stands by and encourages the execution of the deed 8 , 
 or recognizes the title of the trustee under the assign- 
 ment 9 , or accepts payment of a dividend 10 , he cannot 
 rely on the assignment as an act of bankruptcy, nor 
 on the circular calling the meeting 1 , unless the deed 
 contains an unexplained preference in favour of a 
 particular creditor 2 , or is otherwise fraudulent against 
 the creditor 3 . Similarly when creditors assent to a 
 
 'In re Andrew (1875 )) 1 Ch. D. 358; 45 L. J. Bank. 57, and see 
 Jiotes to section 4(6). 
 
 i In re Gentry (1910), 1 K. B. 825 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 585; 17 Mans, 
 104, aliter, if the money is accepted, per Cozens-Hardy, L.J., In re 
 Gentry, supra. 
 
 n Ex parte and in re Lowe (1890), 62 L. T. 263; 7 Mor. 25, and see 
 infra, p. 138. 
 
 'Hood v. Newoy (1882), 21 Ch. U. 605 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 204; Em parte 
 Edwards in re Chapman (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 747; 1 Mor. 238. It may 
 be also that acceptance of the tender would be contrary to the spirit of 
 section 4(9). 
 
 7 See generally as to petitions by secured creditors : Moor v. Anglo- 
 Italian Bank (1879), 10 Ch. D. 681 ; In re Button ex parte Voss (1905), 
 1 K. B. 602 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 403 ; 12 Mans. 111. A surety can be made 
 a bankrupt even though the creditor holds security for the debt on 
 property which is not the property of the debtor.' In such case the 
 creditor is not qua the surety a secured creditor: In re and ex parte 
 Debtor (1919), 88 L. J. K. B. 1248; (1918-19), B & C. R. 221; In re 
 Hodges, ex parte Matthews (1896), 3 Mans. 329. 
 
 'Ew^nirte and m re Stray (1867), L. R. 2 Ch. 374; 36 L. J. Bank. 
 7; Gardner v. Kloepfer (1885), 7 O. R. 603. 
 
 'ft parte and in re Woodroff (1897), 76 L. T. 502; 4 Mans. 46; 
 Ex parte Ridgway in re Hawley (1897), 76 L. T. 501 ; 4 Mans. 41; 
 Ex parte Taylor & Co. in re Brindley (1906) , 1 K. B. 377 ; 75 L. J. K. B. • 
 211 ; 13 Mans. 1, but contrast In re Mun-ieta ex parte South American 
 Co. (1896), 3 Mans. 35, and see notes to section 3(a). 
 
 M Beemer v. Oliver (1884), 10 O. A. R. 656, 662. See Miller v. 
 Hamlin (1882), 2 O. R. 103. • 
 
 x Ex parte and in re Waodroff (1897), 76 L. T. 502; 4 Mans. 46. 
 The most similar section under our Act is 3(/). 
 
 2 In re and ex parte Marshall (1841), 1 M. D. & D. 575. 
 
 8 See notes to section 3(a). 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 129 
 
 deed of -composition on the understanding that if the Section 4 
 debtor makes default he will make an assignment, such 
 creditors cannot rely on an assignment demanded by 
 the trustee of the composition, even where the assign- 
 ment is not in accordance with the composition, and 
 so does not bind them for all purposes 4 ; but a creditor 
 who has assented to a proposed deed of assignment 
 may revoke his assent before the deed is executed. He 
 is then not precluded from relying on any acts of bank- 
 ruptcy leading up to or connected with the proposed 
 assignment 5 ; and where the creditor though prevented 
 by his conduct from founding a bankruptcy petition 
 on a deed of assignment is not actually bound by the 
 terms of the deed he may found a petition on an inde- 
 pendent act of bankruptcy - A creditor may, by attempt- 
 ing to coerce the debtor into a fraud, so taint the trans- 
 action that he precludes himself from obtaining a 
 receiving order on that particular act of bankruptcy 7 . 
 Where objection is taken to a petition that the creditor 
 has assented to, acquiesced in or submitted to the 
 deed of assignment relied on as the act of bankruptcy, 
 the onus is on the person raising such objection to 
 establish the assent, acquiescence or submission 8 . A 
 much stronger case is required when the alleged acqui- 
 escence or submission comes after the deed is exe- 
 cuted than when it comes before 9 . Nor is it sufficient 
 to show that the creditor merely had notice of the 
 deed being executed; it must be shown that he inten- 
 tionally took advantage of the deed being executed 10 . 
 
 It can be argued with some force that the " debt Whether the 
 owing" referred to in section 4(3) (a) means a debt^bT 6 
 "presently payable". Under the Act 5 Geo. II c. 30, *£%§& 
 
 * Ex parte Viney in re Adamson, 43 W. R. 192 ; 2 Mans. 153 ; Ex 
 parte and in re Stray (1867), L. R. 2 Ch. 374; 36 L. J. Bank. 7. 
 
 "Ex parte Associated Newspapers in re Jones Brothers (1912), 3 
 K. B. 234 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 1178 ; 19 Mans. 349. 
 
 " Ex parte and in re Mills (1906) , 1 K. B. 389 ; 75 L. J. K. B. 247 ; 
 13 Mans. 9. 
 
 7 Ex parte Gill in re Shaw (1901), 83 L. T. 754; distinguish In re 
 Sunderland (1911) , 2 K. B. 658 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 825 ; 18 Man. 123 ; and 
 see further notes to section 4(6). 
 
 s Ex parte and in re Michael, 8 Mor. 305. 
 
 9 S. C. 
 
 10 S. C. 
 
130 
 
 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 And a liqui 
 dated sum. 
 
 Section 4 s. 22, a current bill of exchange or other debt payable 
 in future was sufficient to support a petition 1 . This 
 was changed by the Act of 1869, which permitted a 
 creditor to petition when the "debt due" was "a liqui- 
 dated sum due at law or in equity", which was inter- 
 preted to exclude a debt payable at a future date 2 . It 
 was apparently to change this rule that the Act of 
 1883 enacted that the "debt owing" by the debtor 
 might be a "liquidated sum payable either immedi- 
 ately or at some certain future time" 3 . It has been 
 held on that Act that if a debtor who has given a bill 
 of exchange for the price of goods sold, commits an 
 act of bankruptcy, the creditor is entitled to treat the 
 bill as- dishonoured for the purpose of presenting a 
 bankruptcy petition. 4 
 
 The debt must be one payable to a particular per- 
 son 5 , and must it seems be a liquidated sum 6 in exist- 
 ence prior to the act of bankruptcy on which the peti- 
 tion is. founded 7 ; though it need not have been due 
 
 1 Brett v. Levett (1810), 13 East. 213, and see section 91 of the 
 Act of 1849 (12 & 13 Vic. c. 106). Under The Insolvent Acts of' 
 1864 and 1569, a "creditor of the insolvent" whose debt was not yet 
 due, might petition: Moore v. Luce (1868), 18 U. C. C. P. 446; In re 
 Perks (1870), 13 N. B. R. (2 Hannay) 121; see B. v. Eenry (1801). 
 21 O. R. 113. 
 
 2 Ex parte Sturt in re Pearcy (1871), L. R. 13 Eq. 309; 41 L. J. 
 Bank. 12, a decision of Bacon, C.J. 
 
 3 Section 6(1) (a) (6). The same words are in the English Act of 
 1914, section 4(1) (6), and were in the Bill of, the present Act as passed 
 by the House of Commons, but they were stricken out in the Senate. 
 
 ,*Ex parte and m re Raatz (1897), 2 Q. B. 80; 66 L. J. Q. B. 501: 
 4 Mans. 127. But the endorser of a discounted bill of exchange is not 
 such a creditor of the acceptor that he can, because of his liability to 
 pay the bill if the acceptor make default, present a bankruptcy petition 
 against the acceptor: In re Thomas (1921), 1 C. B. R. 473; 20 G. W. 
 N. 180 (Orde, J.). 
 
 ' Where there is uncertainty who is to receive the sum, as in the 
 case of damages recovered under The English Divorce Act against a co- 
 respondent, this uncertainty may prevent any particular person from 
 being a good petitioning creditor, though the debt may be a provable 
 debt: Ex parte 'and in re Muirhead (1876), 2 Ch. D. 22; 45 L. J.Bank. 
 65, and see in the case of a contingent debt : in re and ex parte Page 
 (1821), 1 Gl. & J. 100. ' 
 
 "Ex parte and in re Broadhurst (1853), 22 L. J. Bank. 21; 17 
 Jur. 964. 
 
 'Ex parte and in re Eayward (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 546; 40 L. J. 
 Bank. 49, where it was held that a bill of exchange issued after the 
 act of bankruptcy was insufficient • to support the petition; and see Br: 
 parte Charles (1811), 14 East. 197. Where after the act of bankruptcy 
 relied on, the creditor enters into an agreement to accept a cheque for 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 131 
 
 to the petitioning creditor himself before the act of section 4 
 bankruptcy relied on 8 . 
 
 A covenant that the debts of a firm do not exceed a 
 specific sum, and if they do the defendant will pay 
 the plaintiff on demand the sum by which the debts 
 exceed the specific sum is a covenant for an unliqui- 
 dated sum . Where the remedy of the creditor is in 
 damages for breach of an agreement there is no 
 liquidated debt 10 . When at the time that an act of 
 bankruptcy was committed the debtor was being sued 
 for £49.11.7 debt and £3 costs ; and after the act of 
 bankruptcy judgment was signed for a total of £58.1.1 
 for debts and costs, and the plaintiff presented a bank- 
 ruptcy petition; it was held that as there was not a 
 petitioner's debt of £50 at the date of the act of bank- 
 ruptcy no adjudication could be made 1 . In England 
 it has been held that the costs of an abortive execution 
 cannot be added to the judgment debt for the purpose 
 of making up the amount of the debt required to sup- 
 port a" petition ; this on the ground that there the co'sts 
 are recoverable only out of a particular fund, viz : the 
 fruits of the particular execution, and the debtor is 
 under no personal liability for them 2 ; but interest 
 may be added to a judgment debt 3 . 
 
 part of the judgment debt and the balance in instalments, the original 
 debt is extinguished and a new contract is substituted for it, and it is 
 no longer a good petitioning debt with respect to that act of bank- 
 ruptcy: In re a Debtor ex parte London & County Discount Co. (1909), 
 16 Mans. 205 ; but if after the occurrence of the act of bankruptcy relied 
 on, the creditor recovers judgment on a simple contract debt the judg- 
 ment does not * extinguish the debt for the purpose of bankruptcy pro- 
 ceedings so as to prevent the debt being available to support the petition. 
 It seems that where the judgment has not been obtained at the date 
 of the act of bankruptcy the better practice is to found the petition on 
 the original debt: Ex parte and in re King and Beesley (1895), 1 Q. B. 
 189; 64 L. J. Q. B. 126; 1 Mans. 505. 
 
 "Ex parte Cyrus in re Broadridge (1869) , L. R. 5 Oh. 176; 21 L. T. 
 664. The transfer of a bill of exchange after the act of bankruptcy, but 
 before adjudication, makes the transferee a good petitioning creditor. 
 
 'Walker v. Broadhurst (1853); 23 L. J. Ex. 71. 
 
 10 In re Miller (1901), 1 K. B. 51 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 1 ; 8 Mans. 1, a 
 case depending on the construction of an agreement ; and see Ex parte 
 Furoer in re King (1881), 17 Ch. D. 191, where the amount of the debt 
 depended on the rate of interest which should be paid on the agreement. 
 
 l Ex parte Sadler in re Whelan (1879), 48 L. J. Bank. 43. 
 
 2 Ex parte Cuddeford m re Long <1888), 20 Q. B. D. 316; 57 
 L. J. Q. B. 360; 5 Mor. 29. 
 
 8 In re Lehman ex parte Hasluek (1590) , 7 Mor. 181. 
 
132 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 4 
 
 Purchase of 
 a debt. 
 
 Act of 
 bankruptcy 
 within six 
 months of 
 the petition. 
 
 Proof of 
 the debt. 
 
 It is no objection to the petition that the creditor 
 in order to found a petition upon it*, or to bring his 
 debt up to the required amount, has made a bona fide 
 purchase for value from another creditor of a claim 
 against the insolvent 5 , so long as the debt is pur- 
 chased for the purpose of better obtaining payment 
 of his. own' debt and not for an illegitimate or collat- 
 eral purpose". 
 
 Unless the amendment of section 2(h) made by The 
 Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act 1921 has made a 
 change in the law, the act of bankruptcy on which the 
 petition is grounded must have occurred within six 
 months before the presentation of the petition. Cer- 
 tain acts of bankruptcy are continuing ac+s of bank- 
 ruptcy 7 . In computing the period of six months the 
 day on which the petition is filed is to be included 8 ; 
 but the day on which seizure is made under section 
 3(e) is excluded 9 . The petition may be presented on 
 the same day as that on which the act of bankruptcy 
 was committed 10 . Month means a calendar month 1 . 
 
 The petitioning creditors ought to go to the hear- 
 ing prepared to prove the material matters in the 
 petition 2 . Oral evidence may be given to prove the 
 continuance of the debt 3 , and the creditor may require 
 production of the books of the debtor to prove the 
 
 * In re and ex parte Baker (1887), 5 Mor. 5. 
 
 5 Carrier v. Allin (1877), 2 O. A. R. 15 ; Glaister v. Sewer (1797), 
 7 T. R. 498; In re and eat parte Baker (1887), 5 Mor. 5; and see Ex 
 parte Cyrus in re Broadridge (1869), L. R. 5 Ch. 176; 21 L. T. 664. 
 
 "Ex parte Harper in re Pooley (1882), 20 Ch. D. 685; 51 L. J. Ch. 
 .810; Ex parte Griffin in re Adams (1879), 12 Ch. D. 480; 48 L. J. Bank. 
 107 ; Ex parte Gratton, 2 M. D; & DeG. 401 ; In re and ex parte Baker 
 (1887), 5 Mor. 5; and see King v. Henderson (1898) A. C. 720; 67 
 L. J. P. C. 134; 5 Mans. 308; and notes to section 4(6). 
 
 ' See section 3(d) , cf. 3(e) ; and see In re Beeiton (1899), 1 Q- B. 
 626; 68 L. J. Q. IB. 344; 6 Man. 27. 
 
 8 In re Hanson ex parte Forster (1887) , 4 Mor. 98. 
 
 'Ex parte Hasluck in re North (1895), 2 Q. B. 264; 64 L. J. Q. B- 
 694; 2 Mans. 326. 
 
 10 In re Haynes ex parte Kibble (1890), 7 Mor. 50. 
 
 'E. S. C. 1906, c. 1, s. 35(16) : The Interpretation Act. _ 
 
 2 Ex parte and. in re Sanders (1894), 63 L. J. Q, B. 734; 1 Mans. 
 382; Ex parte and in re Rogers (1880), 15 Ch. D. 207. 
 
 3 /m re Stables ex parte Smith & Sons (1894), 42 W. R. 448; 1 
 Mans. 68, and see section 68(6), and supra notes to section 4(2). As 
 to release by order of discharge from joint and separate debts, see 
 section 61(3). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 133 
 
 allegations in the petition*. Semble, the creditor may Section 4 
 call the debtor in support of the petition 5 ; but he may ~ 
 not before the. hearing of the petition examine the 
 debtor for discovery". The affidavit of verification 7 
 is to satisfy the Registrar of the performance of the 
 conditions precedent to the sealing of the petition. 
 When it has served that purpose it is so to speak dead- 
 On an unopposed hearing the court may look at it ; but 
 it has been said that at an opposed hearing- no reliance 
 ought to be placed on it 8 . 
 
 If the court is not satisfied with the proof of the 
 petitioning creditor's debt it may dismiss the petition. 
 The court may at the instance of the debtor himself 
 go behind a judgment and inquire into the validity of 
 the debt, even though the debtor had previously 
 applied in the action to have the judgment set aside 
 and his application had been refused, and the refusal 
 confirmed by the Court of Appeal 9 , for the object of 
 the bankruptcy laws is to procure the distribution of 
 a debtor's goods among his just creditors 10 . 
 
 But a Court of Bankruptcy, after investigation of a judgment 
 the procedings leading up to judgment, has no jur- ^ 00nclu " 
 isdiction to deeide that there was no valid debt,: the 
 jurisdiction of the Court is limited to a discretion to 
 refuse to make a receiving order 1 . The court will not 
 as a matter of course or on the mere suggestion of 
 the debtor 2 inquire into the validity of the judgment 
 debt, but it will do so where there is evidence that 
 
 * In re X. Y. ex parte Haes (1902) , 1 K. B. 98 ; 71 L. J. K. B. 102 ; 
 S Mans. 5. 
 
 In re X. Y. ex parte Haes, supra. 
 
 'In re a Debtor (No. 7 of 1910), (1910), 2 K. B. 59; 79 L. J. K. B. 
 1065 ; 17 Mans. 263. 
 
 'See section 4(2). 
 
 'Ex parte and in re Sanders (1894), supra, and In re Lindsay 
 (1874) , h. R. 19 Eq. 52 ; 44 L. J. .Bank. 5.. 
 
 'Ex parte Central Bank m re Eraser (1892), 2 Q. B. 633; 9 Mor. 
 256. 
 
 "Ex parte Kibble in re Gnsloiv (1875), L B. 10 Ch. 373; 44 T,. J. 
 Bank. 63, judgment on a bill of exchange given by an infant. And see 
 generally, In re a Debtor ex parte Creditor (1917), 2 K. B. 60 ; 86 
 L. J. K. B. 745; (1917), H. B. R. 123; In re and ex parte VUoria 
 (1894), 2 Q. B. 387 ; 63 L. J. N. B. 795 ; 1 Mans. 236. 
 
 1 Ex parte Lennox (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 315; 55 L. J. Q. B. 45; 
 2 Mor. 271. 
 
 'Ex parte Beyfus in re Savitte (1887), 4 Mor. 277. 
 
134 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Tender 
 
 section 4 the judgment has been obtained by fraud or collusion 
 ~ or that there has been some miscarriage of justice or 
 that there is no good petitioning creditor's debt irre- 
 spective of the judgment 3 ; or semble, that a com- 
 promise on which a judgment was based was unfair 
 and unreasonable 4 . Therefore, the mere fact that an 
 appeal is pending from the judgment will not be suffi- 
 cient ground for staying the proceedings on the peti- 
 tion 5 . The power of the court to go behind a judg- 
 ment is only a power to enquire into the consideration 
 for, and not into the form of, the judgment 6 . Nor will 
 the court question the discretion of another court in 
 giving interest on the judgment 7 . 
 
 The court is justified in making a receiving order 
 where the petitioning creditor has after the presenta- 
 tion of the petition refused to accept the debtor's 
 tender of the debt and costs 8 , or where the petition- 
 ing creditor refuses to accept money paid into court 
 by the debtor at the trial of the question of the 
 validity of the debt 8 . But it may be that there are 
 circumstances under which the court can refuse to 
 make a receiving order after tender to the petitioning 
 creditor 10 . 
 
 The court will not encourage an attempt by a 
 creditor by means of a bankruptcy or winding-up peti- 
 tion to enforce payment of a debt which is bona fide 
 disputed, but where the only dispute is as to amount 
 and there is no question that the amount exceeds the 
 
 3 In re Flata-u em parte Scotch Whiskey Co. (18S8) , 22 Q. B. D. 83 ; 
 In re Newey ex parte Whiteman (1913), 107 L. T. 832; Boaler v. 
 Power (1910), 2 K. B. 229 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 486; 17 Mans. 125; In re 
 a Debtor (1915), 13 L. T. R. 704. See in the case of a default judg- 
 ment In re Turvey ex parte Lewis & Son, him. (1918-1919) , B. & C. K. 
 128. 
 
 4 In re Hawkins ex, parte Troup (1895), 1 Q. B. 404 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 
 673 ; 2 Mans. 14. 
 
 5 In re Flatau ex parte Seotch Whiskey Co. (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 83. 
 "ire re and ex parte Beawhamp (1904), 1 K. B. 572;, 73 L.' J. 
 
 K. B. 311 ; 11 Mans. 5; In re Lykes, Jaram v. Holmes (1909), 53 Sol. 
 J. 267. 
 
 ' In re and ex parte Beaiiohamp, supra. 
 
 'Ex parte Brigstocke, 4 Oh. D. 348; 46 L. J. Bank. 50. 
 
 'In re Gentry (1910), 1 K. B. 825 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 585 ; 17 Mans. 
 104. ■ 
 
 10 Ex parte Brigstocke, 4 Oh. D. 348, and see notes to section 4 
 (3) (a), undei" the side note ''who may. petition ". 
 
 Disputed 
 debt. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 135 
 
 minimum required by the section, the court will no Section 4 
 doubt make a receiving order 11 . 
 
 An accord and satisfaction given to one of two Accord and 
 joint and several judgment debtors which releases satlsfactlon - 
 him from the entire joint and several judgment debt 
 will release the other judgment debtor 1 ; but the rule 
 of law that time given to a principal debtor discharges 
 a surety does not apply when the time is given after a 
 judgment for the debt has been recovered by the credi- 
 tor against both the principal debtor and the surety*. 
 
 It is conceived that where an authorized assign- whether the 
 ment has been made and then a petition presented, it blstbe C ad- 
 will have to be a strong case to satisfy the court that ministered 
 
 ° J under the 
 
 the estate can best be administered under the assign- assignment, 
 ment, and to induce it to deny to the creditor his 
 right to a receiving order 3 . Creditors under a receiv- 
 ing order occupy a much more favourable position 
 than they do under an authorized assignment. In 
 authorized assignments there is no relation back of 
 the title of the trustee, such as takes place on the 
 making of a receiving order*. Moreover in the case 
 of a receiving order all the property of the debtor 
 vests in the trustee, and this property includes not only 
 property covered by the relation back of the trustee 's 
 title ; but also all property which may be acquired by 
 or devolve upon the bankrupt before his discharge 5 . 
 There is no such provision in the case of an authorized 
 
 "See In re .Steel Ring Go. (1920), 1 B. & C. R. 160; Re Meaford 
 Mfg. Go. (1919), 46 O. L. R. 282 (Middleton, J.). 
 
 1 In re E. W. A. a Debtor (1901) , 2 K. B. 642 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 810 ; 
 8 Mans. 250 ; see as to the effect of a discharge in the case of joint con- 
 tractors, section 61(3). 
 
 2 In re a Debtor (1913), 3 K. B. 11, 14; 82 L. J. K. B. 907; 20 
 Mans. 119, and see Ex parte Good in re Armitage (1877), 5 Ch. D. 46; 
 In re Wolmershausen (1890) , 62 L. T. 541. 
 
 3 Section 4(6) does not authorize the refusal of a receiving order 
 where the debtor with the palpable intention of choosing his own trustee 
 makes an authorized assignment after he is served with the petition and 
 before the hearing, per Orde, J., in In re Croteau and Clark Co., Ltd. 
 (1920), 48 O. L. R. 359; 19 0. W. N. 199. In the case of a company 
 there is much less prospect that the estates to be administered under a 
 receiving order and under an assignment will differ. In the case of 
 Re Thomas Waterhouse & Go., Ltd. (1921), 20 0. W. N. 298, the, 
 question of different estates does not appear to have been mentioned. 
 
 * See notes to sections 4(10), 63 and 25. 
 5 Section 25. 
 
136 
 
 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 "Other suf 
 ficient 
 cause " 
 (a) 
 
 No assets. 
 
 Section 4 assignment. It has been held in England not to be 
 — in itself a sufficient reason for refusing the receiving 
 order 6 ; that only one creditor with a substantial claim 
 wishes the estate to go into bankruptcy; or that an 
 unimpeachable assignment has been made 7 ; nor is it 
 conclusive that relatives will make a large money gift 
 for the benefit of creditors if the estate is administered 
 under the assignment, but that this money will not be 
 available if a receiving order is made 8 . 
 
 Although at the hearing of the petition there may 
 be no assets for distribution among the creditors', this 
 is not sufficient cause to justify the court in refusing 
 to make a receiving order 9 , for property may be 
 acquired by the debtor before his discharge 10 , ancTif 
 no order is made the debtor may charge such pro- 
 perty 1 ; but if the court is clearly convinced 2 , not by 
 
 'In re and ex. parte Dispon -(1884), 13 Q. B. D. 118; 53 L. J. Ch. 
 769 ; 1 Mor. 98 ; Ex parte Oram, in re Watson (1885) , 15 Q. B. D. 399 ; 
 
 2 Mor. 99; In re Scott ex parte Paris-Orleans Railway Co. (1913), 5.8 
 Sol. J. 11. Under the English Act a receiving order is only a step 
 toward the ultimate adjudication ; but it is a first step, which will be 
 followed 'by the second unless a composition or scheme is entered into. 
 These decisions in bankruptcy are in accord with the decision of the 
 present Chief Justice of Ontario in the winding-up case of William Lamb 
 Manufacturing Co. (1900), 32 O. R. 243; distinguish Wakefield Rat- 
 tan Co. v. Hamilton Whip Co. (1893), 24 O. R. 107; In re Maple 
 Leaf Dairy Co. (1901), 2 O. L. R. 590. While a creditor is prima facie 
 entitled to a receiving order where there are assets to be administered 
 upon which the winding-up proceedings can attach with advantage, or 
 probable advantage, that is not the whole matter. Where under an 
 assignment steps have already been taken to realize a large part of the 
 assets, and there is no evidence that if a receiving order is made and 
 the sale set aside there is any reasonable prospect of a larger amount 
 being received 'by a new sale, a discretion exists under The Windmg-Up 
 Act to refuse the order: In re The Strathy Wire Fence Co. (1904). 8 
 O. L. R. 186, 193-195. See where the proceedings could be more 
 expeditiously and inexpensively proceeded with under The Provincial Act : 
 In re Belding Lumber Co., Ltd. (1911), 23 O. L. R. 255. Different 
 considerations apply in the cases of individuals and companies. In the 
 case of a company whose business is being wound up there is less likeli- 
 hood than in the ease of an individual that property will be acquired 
 by the company before its " discharge ". 
 
 ' In re Scott ex, parte Paris-Orleans Railway Co., supra. 
 
 8 In re Scott ex parte Paris-Orleans Railway Co. (1913), 58 Sol. 
 J. 11. 
 
 9 Ex parte and in re Leonard (1896) 1 Q. B. 473 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 393 ; 
 
 3 Mans. 43. 
 "In re Murrieta ex parte South American Co. (1896), 3 Mans. 35; 
 
 In re Scott ex parte Paris-Orleans Railway Co., supra. 
 Hn re Belton (1913), 108 L. T. 344. 
 ' See In re Say (1914), 110 L. T. 47. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT.- 137 
 
 the affidavit of the debtor, but by the facts of the Section 4 
 case, that there are no assets, and will be none, as ~ 
 may be the case where there is a previous bankruptcy 
 in existence under which the debtor is undischarged, 
 there is sufficient ground for refusing to make the 
 order 3 . 
 
 It is not ground for refusing to make a receiving (&) 
 order that the debtor's principal apparent asset will f e assets. lon 
 be thereby destroyed, e.g., a life interest determinable 
 on bankruptcy, unless it is proved to the satisfaction 
 of the court that the asset in question is the sole asset. 
 It is not enough to prove that it will probably be the 
 sole asset 4 , and semble a voluntary promise by relat- 
 ives and creditors to make a large money gift to the 
 debtor if the estate is administered 1 under the assign- 
 ment is not an "asset" 5 Nor is it sufficient cause for 
 refusing to make the order that all the visible assets 
 will be swallowed up by the costs of the' bankruptcy 
 petition 6 . 
 
 It is no reason in England for refusing the applica- (c) 
 tion that the debtor is entitled to property not immedi- immediately 
 ately available owing to an administration action in avaUable - 
 the Chancery Division of the High Court 7 . 
 
 Semble, it is neither fraud nor an abuse of process. w 
 for a creditor 8 to petition for a receiving order with motive* 
 an indirect motive, unconnected with the bankruptcy 
 and' not prejudicial to the equal distribution of the 
 testator 's assets, as> for example to exclude the debtor 
 
 'In re Betts (1887), 1 Q. B. 50; 66 L. J. Q. B. 14; 3 Mans. 287, 
 as explained in In re Jubb ex parte Burman & Greenwood (1897), 1 
 Q. B. 641 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 452 ; 4 Mans. 30 ; Ex parte and in re Robin- 
 son (1883), 22 Ch. D. 816; Ex parte Union Credit Bank in re Somers 
 (1897), 4 Mans. 227 ; see as to the discretion of the court in other cases : 
 In re and ex parte McGullough (1880), 14 Oh. D. 716; In re and ex 
 parte Pinfold (1892), 1 .Q. B- 73; 61 L. J. Q. B. 161; 8 Mor. 312. In 
 some oases "may" is to be read "must": Juluis v.' Lord Bisliop of 
 Oxford (1880) 5 A. C. 214. 241. 
 
 'In re Birkin (1896), 3 Mans. 291. 
 
 5 In re Scott ex* parte Paris-Orleans Railway Co., supra. 
 
 "In re Jubb ex parte Burman & Greenwood (1897), 1 Q. B. 641; 
 66 L. J. Q. B. 452 ; 4 Mans. 30. 
 
 ' In re Whitley ex parte Mirfield Commercial Co. (1881), 65 L. T. 
 351 ; 8 Mor. 149. 
 
 See -where the debtor himself procured the commission to iesue : 
 Ex parte Harcourt (1815), 2 Rose 203. 
 
138 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 4 from a partnership 9 . But the proceedings may not be 
 ~~ used for an illegitimate and fraudulent purpose such 
 as extorting money from the debtor 10 . It is an abuse 
 of the bankruptcy law to purchase a debt due by the 
 bankrupt in order to procure the appointment of a 
 particular trustee; or for the purpose of making the 
 debtor a bankrupt with a view not of recovering the 
 debt, but of putting pressure on him for a collateral 
 object or of injuring him in some way 1 ; or for the pur- 
 pose of threatening to make him a bankrupt in order 
 to force him by that oppression to give up a just debt 2 . 
 The fact that the petitioning creditor, or one of 
 two joint petitioning creditors 3 , has used or even 
 attempted to use bankruptcy proceedings for the pur- 
 poses of fraud or extortion, although the attempt may 
 have failed, is sufficient cause for refusing to make a 
 receiving order on the petition of that creditor 4 , even 
 though there is a good petitioning creditor's debt, and 
 an act of bankruptcy 5 . It is not necessary that the 
 petition should actually have been presented at the 
 time the fraud was attempted 6 . The question of extor- 
 tion or fraud 7 is a question of fact which must depend 
 on the circumstances of each case 8 . If there is nothing 
 in the conduct, of the petitioning creditor which would 
 entitle the debtor to say that he has been imposed upon 
 or subjected to extortion the court will not refuse to 
 
 „ v. Henderson (1898), A. C. 720; 67 iL. J. P. C. 134; 5 
 Mans! 308, and cases there reviewed. 
 
 " In re Dames ex parte King (1876) , 3 Oh. D. 461 ; 45 L. J. Bank. 
 159. 
 
 x Ex parte Harper in re Pooley (1882), 20 Oh. D. 685; 51 L. J. Oh. 
 810. 
 
 2 Ex parte Griffin in re Adams (1879), 12 Ch. D. 480; 48 I* J. 
 Bank. 107. x 
 
 s In re Shaw exi parte Gill (1901), 83 L. T. 754. 
 
 l In re Shaw ex parte Gill (1901), 83 L. T. 754; In re Davies ex 
 parte King (1876), 3 Oh. D. 461; 45 L. J. Bank. 159; Ex" parte Griffin 
 in re Adams (1879), 12 Ch. D. 480; 48 L. J. Bank! 107; Ex parte 
 Harper in re Pooley (1882), 20 Oh. D. 685 ; 51 L. J. Oh. 810. 
 
 5 Ex parte and in re Atkinson (1882) , 9 Mor. 193 ; Re Otway (1895), 
 1 Q. B. 812 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 521 ; 2 Man. 174.' 
 
 'Re Shaw ex parte dill (1901), 83 L. T. 754. 
 
 ''In re Sunderland ex parte Leech & Simphinson (1911), 2 K. B. 
 658, 663 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 825 ; 18 Man. 123. . 
 
 8 Ex parte and in re Bebro (1900) , 2 Q. B. 316 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 618 ; 
 7 Mans. 284. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 139 
 
 make the order 9 ; and where there is no attempt to Section 4 
 make a secret arrangement with the debtor, but an ~ 
 
 open insisting on legal rights, there is no fraud 10 . 
 
 The fact that the debtor has only one creditor will (°) 
 not necessarily be a sufficient reason for refusing to cieditor. 
 make a receiving order 1 , particularly when he is a 
 creditor for a large amount 2 . 
 
 A surety may be made bankrupt though the credi- (<*) 
 tor holds security from the principal debtor which 
 he has not realized 3 . 
 
 Where a creditor whose debt evidenced by notes (e) 
 payable in two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight and ye t due. 
 nine years, presented a petition under the Act of 1864, 
 and it was shown that the debtor did not owe more than 
 $100-00 beyond the debt due the creditor, the court 
 acting under the powers conferred by that Act directed 
 that the debtor should have further time to show if he 
 could that he was not insolvent, and so not liable to 
 have his estate placed in compulsory liquidation 4 . 
 
 A decision of a Registrar not to make a receiving w 
 order is not res judicata which will prevent the same application 
 creditor from petitioning anew Upon the same judg-^^ 
 ment in a proper case 5 , although if after such a refusal order 
 the creditor presents another -petition founded on the 
 same debt and the same act of bankruptcy, a receiving 
 order may be refused if the proceedings are vexatious. 
 Such was the case where a petitioning creditor failed 
 to prove separate trading of a married woman, and, his 
 petition having been dismissed, he presented a fresh 
 joint petition by himself and another creditor founded 
 
 'Ex parte and in re Bebro (1900), 2 Q. B. 316; 69 L. J. Q. B. 
 618; 7 Mans. 284; In re Hay (1914), 110 L. T. 47. 
 
 10 In re Sunderland exi parte Leech & Simpkinson (1911), 2 K. B. 
 658, 663 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 825 ; 18 Mans. 123. 
 
 1 In re Hecquard (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 71 ; 6 Mor. 282. 
 
 'In re Scott ex parte Paris-Orleans Rdiltoay Co. (1913), 58 Sol. J. 
 11, and see William Lamb Manufacturing Co. (1900) , 32 O. R. 243. 
 
 3 In re Hodges ex parte Matthews (1896), 3 Mans. 329; and see 
 Hutchms v. Cohen (1869), 14 L. C. J. 85; and notes to 2(gg) "secured 
 creditor ". 
 
 i In re Moore ex parte Luce (1868), 18 TJ. C. C. P. 446. 
 
 'Ex parte and in re Vitoria (1894), 2 Q. B. 387; 63 L. J. Q. B. 
 795; 1 Mans. 236; King v. Henderson (1898), A. C. 720, 730; 67 
 L- J. P. C. 134 ; 5 Mans. 308. 
 
140 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. ■ 
 
 Section 4 so far as the first petitioner was concerned on the same 
 debt and the same act of bankruptcy 6 . 
 Effect of A distinction exists between the making of a receiv- 
 
 OTder^and ing order and an adjudication of bankruptcy 7 . In 
 adjudication. England w hen the petition is heard no adjudication 
 takes place, but a receiving order is made for the pro-, 
 tection of the estate 8 . Thereupon meetings of credi- 
 tors take place, the public examination of a debtor is 
 conducted and proposals for composition are discussed. 
 If the negotiations for composition come to naught the 
 case comes again before the court, and the debtor is 
 adjudicated bankrupt 9 . In the interim between the 
 making of the receiving order and the adjudication the 
 debtor is the only person who can sue for the recovery 
 of what belongs to him. Unless and until he becomes 
 bankrupt, what he recovers is his property, both legally 
 and equitably, though he must hand it over when he 
 recovers it, to the trustee 19 . It is the adjudication 
 and not the receiving order which vests in the trustee 
 the property of the debtor 1 . With us on the other hand, 
 it is the receiving order which vests the property of the 
 debtor in the trustee 2 , and the adjudication does little 
 more than attach the label of bankrupt to the debtor. 
 As to whether the adjudication and the making of the 
 receiving order are judicial acts which date from the 
 "earliest minute of the day on which they are done, see 
 R. v. Edwards 3 . 
 
 6 In re Zrarurd ex parte Yeomans & Heap (1896) , 3 Mans. 317. 
 
 7 See as to the effect of «. receiving order 6(1) (3). The distinction 
 between a receiving order and an adjudication does not appear to 
 have been kept distinct in section 77(4). 
 
 8 Section 3. 
 "Section 18. 
 
 "Rhodes v. Dawson (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 554; 55 L, J. Q. B. 134, 
 and see Ex parte Postmaster-General in re Bonham (1879). 10 Ch. D. 
 595; 48 L. J. Bank. 84 ;* In re Berry, Duffield v. Williams (1896), 1 
 Oh. 939 ; 65 L. J. Oh. 245 ; 3 Mans. 11. 
 
 1 English Act, 1914, s. 18. 
 
 ^Sections 6(3), 25. As to the extra-territorial effect of the making 
 of the receiving order, see notes to 2(dd), and see Vol. III. Foreign 
 Judgments and 1 Jurisdiction, Piggott, 1910, Butterworth & Co. 
 
 a (1854), 9 Ex. 628; Wright v. Mills (1859), 28 L. J. Ex. 223, and 
 compare as to non- judicial a«ts ; Ea> parte and in re Richardson (1838), 
 3 Deacon 496, 506. See generally Converse v, Michie (1865) , 16 U. C. 
 C. P. 167; Whyte v. Treadwell (1867), 17 U. C. C. P. 488; and see per 
 Wright, J., in In re and ex parte Pollard (1903), 2 K. B. 41; 72 
 L. J. K. B. 509 ; 10 Mans. 152. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 141 
 
 Where proceedings are stayed under section 4(7), Section 4 
 security should not, as a general rule, be required for where pro- 
 an amount greater than that of the debt on which the ^y^nder 
 petition is founded; but under special circumstances section 4(7). 
 security for a greater amount can be required 4 . 
 
 Where the court has ordered security to be given 
 within a limited time, and the debtor neglects to give 
 the security, the court, should not adjudge the debtor 
 a bankrupt without first going into the account and 
 ascertaining whether there was a debt sufficient to 
 support the adjudication 6 . 
 
 Where an order is made for a stay of proceedings 
 under this sub-section, and on the trial of the question 
 of the validity of the debt, the debtor admits the debt 
 and pays the amount of the debt and costs into court, 
 the petitioning creditor is not bound to accept pay- 
 ment of the debt by taking the money out of court, but 
 may proceed with the petition 6 . 
 
 Leave to withdraw a creditor's petition should not withdrawal 
 be given without the court being first informed of the under sec^ 
 facts of the case and the proposed terms of withdrawal, tIon4 (9) " 
 so that it may exercise its judgment as to whether the 
 case is a proper one for allowing a withdrawal 7 . 
 
 It is difficult to see what is intended by section Distinction 
 4(10) 8 . Under The Bankruptcy Act the relation hack betwem the^ 
 of the bankruptcy of the debtor is of little importance ; of theibank- 
 it is the relation back of the title of the trustee which debtor °andi e 
 is important. The corresponding section in the Eng- ^cko! the 
 lish Act is intelligible, for under that enactment the titieof the 
 adjudication of bankruptcy vests the property of the 
 debtor in the trustee. Under our Act, it is the making 
 of the receiving order which does this 9 . Heading sec- 
 tions 6(3) and 25 of the Canadian Act together it is 
 
 'Ex parte and in re Evans (1884), 50 L. T. 158. 
 
 'Ex parte and in re Harris (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 264. 
 
 'In re Gentry ex parte O. R. (1910), 1 K. B. 825; 79' L. J. K. B. 
 585 ; 17 Mans. 104. 
 
 'In re Bebro (1900), 2 Q. B. 316; 69 L. J. Q. B. 618 ; 7 Mans. 284. 
 
 "'See, however, sections 29 and 30. 
 
 "Compare English Act, sections 31(1), 7(1), 18(1), 53(1), 38, 
 with Canadian Act, 4(10), 6(1), 6(3), 25. 
 
142 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 4 clear that the title of the trustee relates back to the 
 — date of the presentation of the bankruptcy petition 10 . 
 Relation Although section 4(10) does not treat of the rela- 
 
 of the° 1 e tion back of the 1 title of the trustee, it is convenient 
 trustee. here to discuss that cognate and important subject. 
 
 In England the bankruptcy of the debtor is deemed 
 to have relation back to and. to commence at the time 
 at which the act of bankruptcy was committed, on. 
 which a receiving order is made against him;, or if 
 the bankrupt is proved to have committed more acts 
 of bankruptcy than one, to have relation back to, and. 
 to commence at, the time of the first of the acts of 
 bankruptcy committed by the bankrupt within, three 
 months next preceding' the date of the presentation' 
 of the bankruptcy petition 1 . 
 
 The relation back of the title of the trustee affects 
 transactions by or with the debtor af,ter the commence- 
 ment of his bankruptcy. After that date the bankrupt 
 is deemed to have had no title ; and no power to con- 
 vey or charge what had been his property, or to give 
 receipts for moneys paid to him, or discharges for 
 debts due him. Nor is a trustee asserting his title by 
 relation back estopped by any representation made by 
 the bankrupt after the date to which the title relates 
 back 2 . ' 
 Severity of , The severity of the doctrine of relation back is miti- 
 isHiatigatedi gated by' section 32, and by two rules applied by the 
 a?f draffs court. The first rule is that the court will not permit'its 
 
 followed 1 
 
 by the "Compare Dominion Winding-Up Act, R, S. C. 1906, c. 144, s. 5: 
 
 Court. Fuches v. Hamilton Tribune (1884), 10 P. R. 409; Bank of Hamilton 
 
 v. Cramer Irtvm (1912) , 1 D. L. R. 475 ; and The English Companies 
 Act of 1862, s. 84. Under The Canadian Bankruptcy Act of 1864, the 
 title of the trustee took effect at the date of the issuing of the writ of 
 attachment: Thome v.' Torrance (1866), 16 U. G. C. P. 445,; 18 U. C. 
 C. P. 29. See also the curious wording of sections 29(2) and 30, -where 
 the " date of the petition " is the phrase used. As to what is meant by 
 the " date of the presentation of the petition ", see notes to section 76. 
 
 1 (1914), 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 59, s. 37(1). 
 
 2 In re and ex parte •SaUman (1912). 1 K. B. 309; 81 L. J. K. B. 
 360; 19 Mans. 49; In re Evans ex parte Salomon (1916), 2 H. B. E. 
 Ill; and see generally In re Gunslowg (No. 3), (1920), 2 K. B. 426; 
 89 L. J. K. B. 725. A trustee may be estopped from impeaching a 
 transaction by conduct of the debtor prior to the date to which his title 
 relates back: Madell v. Thomas & Co. (1891), 1 Q. B. 230, 238; 60 
 L. J. Q. B. 227; In re and ex parte Salomon, supra; In re Evans ex 
 parte Salomon, supra. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 143 
 
 officer to insist on a rule of law or equity in the admin- Section 4 
 istration of the estate where insistence would produce ~ 
 an unjust and dishonest result 3 . The second rule is that 
 a trustee in bankruptcy may in the.exercise of his dis- 
 cretion adopt and pay for services rendered to a bank- 
 rupt after notice of an act of bankruptcy when such 
 services have clearly resulted in a benefit or profit to 
 the bankrupt's estate commensurate with the services 
 rendered; but the trustee must be very strict in the 
 application of the rule*. 
 
 After the presentation of a petition against him incapacity 
 a debtor who has committed an available act f ofdeb,tor - 
 bankruptcy is something less than a mere trustee of 
 his assets for the creditors in his bankruptcy. Until 
 this state of suspense has been removed, either by 
 the making of a receiving order or the dismissal of the 
 petition, he has no right to deal with those assets that 
 are in his hands.; and can give no title in them to any 
 transferee who has notice of an available act of bank- 
 ruptcy. Thus the debtor cannot pay an accountant 
 for past services 5 , and the debtor's trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy can recover from a bookmaker moneys paid by 
 the bankrupt in satisfaction of a gaming debt void by 
 statute 6 . Similarly with regard to the debts and other 
 choses in action which form part of his estate, he can- 
 not collect them or give a valid discharge for them ; 
 and anyone making payment to him with notice of the 
 act of bankruptcy does so at his peril. But these m^t of 
 provisions are for the benefit of the bankrupt, not^^ e r 
 
 *In re Thellusson ex parte Aody (1919), 2 K. B. 735; In re Tyler 
 ex parte 0. R. (1907), 1 K. B. 865; 76 L. J. K. B. 541; 14 Mans. 73; 
 Ex parte Simmonds in re Carnac (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 308; 55 L. J. 
 Q. B. 74; Em parte James in re Condon (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 609 ; 43 
 L. J. Bank 107; distinguish In re Stokes ex parte Mellish (1919), 2 
 E. B. 256; In re PhUMps ex parte O. R. (1914), 2 K. B. 689; 83 
 L. J. K. B. 1316; 21 Man. 144; Tapster v. Ward (1909), 101 L T. 25, 
 503; In re Sail ex parte 0. R. (1907), 1 fc. B. 875; 76 L. J. K. B. 
 546 ; 14 Mans. 82. 
 
 'Ex parte Ball in re Simonson (1894), 1 Q. B. 433 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 
 242; 1 Man. 30. 
 
 "In re White ex parte Ward (1898), 5 Mans. 17; but in some 
 cases he can pay a solicitor for f utuTe services : In re Sinclair ex parte 
 Payne (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 616; 2 Mor. 255. See infra, p. 145. 
 
 "Ward v. Fry (1901), 85 L. T. 394. See as to incapacity of 
 payee of a promissory note to endorse it after the Making of a receiving 
 order i Jenks v. Doran (1880), 5 O. A. R. 558. 
 
144 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 4 for the advantage of his debtors, consequently notice 
 of an act of bankruptcy is not a defence to an action 
 otherwise well founded. It does' not follow that the 
 consequence of a judgment in favour of the insolvent 
 plaintiff ought to be that the money recovered is paid 
 to the plaintiff. The right course for the court to 
 pursue after notice of an act of bankruptcy and of 
 service of a petition on the insolvent would seem to 
 be to direct the money recovered from the defendant 
 to be kept in court until it shall be seen whether the 
 person entitled to it is the insolvent plaintiff or the 
 Costs. representative of his estate 7 . Semble, a defendant who 
 
 immediately after action is commenced 1 brings the 
 money into court- and states the facts which demon- 
 strate the impossibility of making tender, is entitled 
 to his costs of the action 8 . 
 Position of As what had been the property of the debtor is by 
 
 debtor. e reason of the relation back of. the title of the trustee, 
 deemed not to have been his, any trustee or agent of the 
 debtor or any person such as a debenture holder", 
 who has meddled with the property after the date to 
 which the title of the trustee relates back, will be in 
 the position of a trustee de son tort 10 . 
 Appropria- But where solicitors have moneys on hand with 
 
 se^ices. P,aSt authority to use them to pay their own costs and those 
 of others employed by them for the debtor, they may, 
 after notice of an act of bankruptcy, appropriate those 
 moneys or a portion of them, as the case may be, not 
 only to cover their own services rendered before notice 
 of the act of bankruptcy, but also to pay others such 
 as accountants to whom they had incurred liability on 
 behalf of the debtor before notice of. the act of bank- 
 ruptcy 11 . 
 
 ' Ponsford Baker & Co. v. Union of London Bank (1906), 2 Ob. 
 444 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 724 ; 13 Mans. 321. 
 
 ''McCarthy v. Capital & County's Bamk (1911), 2 K. B. 1088; 81 
 L. J. K. B. 14 ; 18 Mans. 343. 
 
 'In re Goldberg ex parte Page (1912), 1 K. B. 606; 81 L. J. K. B. 
 663 ; 19 Mans. 138. 
 
 10 A trustee under an authorized assignment might even find himself 
 in this position. See section 3(a) and Davis v. Petrie (1906), 2 K. B. 
 786 ; 75 L. J. K. B. 992 ; 13 Mans. 344, and see notes to 6(3) . 
 
 11 In re WMtlock ex parte 0. R. (1894), 63 h. J. K. B. 245; 1 
 Mans. 33. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 145 
 
 On the other hand neither solicitors, accountants Section 4 
 nor trustees can, after knowledge of an act of bank- payment out 
 ruptcy, and while there is any prospect of the relation ^ f -J^" e 
 back of the title of the trustee in bankruptcy, safely 
 pay out assets in their hands the property of the bank- 
 rupt for work performed after notice of an act of 
 bankruptcy 12 - 
 
 With respect to retainer by a solicitor of moneys Appropria- 
 paid to him or in his hands for services rendered to receipt for 
 the debtor after the commencement of the title of the **5)f,!L 
 
 Sci VH_.cS. 
 
 trustee, and after notice of an act of bankruptcy cer- 
 tain nice distinctions arise. It was decided in In re 
 Sinclair ex parte Payne 13 , that money bona fide paid 
 by a debtor to his solicitor to defray counsel's fees 
 and other legal expenses in opposing proceedings in 
 bankruptcy that have been commenced against him, 
 cannot, should adjudication follow, be recovered from 
 the solicitor by the trustee, even although the solicitor 
 knew of the acts of bankruptcy on which the proceed- 
 ings were based. This ease only applies to ready 
 money which is paid over, and has no application to 
 moneys or the proceeds of property which happen to 
 be in the hands of a solicitor 1 . The other current of 
 authority is indicated by the case of In re Pollitt ex 
 parte Minor'. In that case a debtor consulted a solici- 
 tor to whom he was already indebted for costs, and 
 the solicitor declined to act further unless he were 
 furnished with money to meet future costs. The debtor 
 placed money in his hands for that purpose, and the 
 solicitor did further work for the debtor, in the course 
 of which he became aware of an act of bankruptcy. It 
 was there held that at the moment when the title of 
 
 12 In re For iter em parte Rawlings (1887), 4 Mor. 292; Ex parte 
 Ball in re Simonson (1894) , 1 Q. B. 433 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 242 ; 1 Mans. 30. 
 
 u (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 616, and see In re Johnson ex parte Ellis 
 (1914), 111 L. T. 165. 
 
 1 Ex parte May m re Spackman (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 728; 59 
 L. J. Q. B. 306; 7 Mor. 100; In re Whitlock ex' parte 0. R. (1894), 63 
 L. J. K. B. 245; 1 Mans. 33; In re Simonson ex parte Ball (1894), 1 
 Q. B. 433 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 242 ; 1 Mans. 30. 
 
 2 (1893), 1 Q. B. 455; 62 L. J. Q. B. 236; 10 Mor. 35; and see 
 In re Mander' ex parte O. R. (1902), 86 L. T. 234. 
 
 B.C.— 10 
 
146 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY AVT. 
 
 Section 4 
 
 Dealings 
 with trustee 
 de son tort. 
 
 Repayment. 
 
 the trustee commenced the solicitor could not do any 
 ' more work for the bankrupt as against the money he 
 then had in hand; and he was ordered to pay over 
 to the trustee the moneys which he claimed to be 
 entitled to' retain in respect of professional services 
 rendered after the commencement of the title of the 
 trustee. This case was distinguished in In re Charl- 
 wood ex parte Masters 3 , where a lump sum was paid 
 under a contract for definite services ; but to be within 
 the rule of In re Charlwood the sum must be irrevoc- 
 ably appropriated to the services ; and not be security 
 for costs only 4 . 
 
 Any debtor of the bankrupt who pays his debt to 
 a trustee de son tort is liable to be made to pay over 
 again to the trustee in bankruptcy. He can only avoid 
 paying by proof that the trustee de son tort, has paid 
 the moneys to the trustee in bankruptcy 5 . The trustee 
 must elect whether he will treat a trustee de son fort 
 as a trespasser or as his agent 6 . 
 
 Persons such as petitioning creditors who receive 
 moneys, the property of the debtor, to which the title 
 of the trustee relates, may be required to pay them 
 over to the trustee; even though these moneys were 
 advanced by third parties to the solicitors of the debtor 
 for payment over to the petitioning creditor 7 ,and even 
 though the debtor in paying the money falsely repre- 
 sented it not to be his, but the property of a thir^ 
 party 8 . A solicitor or other agent who with knowledge 
 of an act of bankruptcy has paid over such moneys 
 to petitioning creditors or other persons may also be 
 
 8 (1894), 1 Q B. €43; 63 L. J. Q. B. 344 ; 1 Mans. 42. 
 
 *In re Beyts & Craig ex parte Cooper (1894), 1 Mans. 56. 
 
 "Davis v. Petrie (1906), 2 K. B. 786; 75 L. J. K. B. 992; 13 
 Mans 1 . 344. 
 
 "Ex parte Vaughan in re Riddeough (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 25; 1 
 Mor. 258; In re Richards ex. parte O. R. (1884). 1 Mor. 242; In re 
 Goldberg ex parte Page (1912), 1 K. B. 606; 81 L. J. K. B. 663; 19 
 Mans. 138; In re Prigoshen ex parte 0. R. (1912), 2 K. B. 494; 81 
 L. J. K. B. 1199 ; 19 Mans. 323 ; Davis v. Petrie, supra; and see notes 
 to section 25. 
 
 7 In re Snyder ex parte Pixley (1891). 8 Mot. 127. 
 
 'In re Ashwell ex parte Salomon (1912), 1 K. B. 390; 81 h. 1. 
 K. B. 360 ; 19 Mans. 49. And see In re Evans ex parte Salaman (19W, 
 H. B. R. 111. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 147 
 
 ordered to pay the moneys over again to the trustee 9 ; Section 4 
 hut where such moneys are advanced hy third parties - 
 impressed with a trust for payment to certain creditors, 
 and never become the property of the debtor, the trus- 
 tee, is not entitled to demand repayment 10 . It is 
 on the same principle that where creditors have notice 
 of an act of bankruptcy and receive money to pay a 
 debt for the incurring of which they then were con- 
 ducting criminal proceedings before a magistrate, the 
 trustee in bankruptcy, if his title relates back to cover 
 the transaction, can recover back the money if it was 
 in fact the money of the debtor though accepted by the 
 creditors under the belief that it was the money of a 
 relative of the debtor 1 But where without notice of an 
 act of bankruptcy payment is made under the sanction 
 of a proper authority, such as a garnishee order made 
 absolute, it will be protected 2 , and it may be that a 
 payment made under compulsion of immediate execu- 
 tion will even after knowledge of an act of bankruptcy 
 be protected 3 . But where to the knowledge of the 
 garnishee a receiver has been appointed, and there is 
 no compulsion or threat of execution, the payment will 
 not be protected 4 , and a debtor of the bankrupt, who 
 without knowledge of an act of bankruptcy by the 
 bankrupt, and before the garnishee order was made 
 absolute, paid over his debt to a judgment-creditor of 
 the bankrupt who had obtained a garnishee order nisi, 
 will be ordered to pay the money over again to the 
 trustee ; for even in a suit at law it would have been 
 no defence to have alleged that the debt had been paid 
 
 '& parte Edwards in re Chapman (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 747 ; 1 Mor. 
 238 ; but the solicitor on being sued by the trustee may have leave, on giv- 
 ing proper indemnity, to use the name of the trustee in his suit to recover 
 the moneys from the persons to whom he ipaid them over : In re Jackson 
 ex parte Hogan & Hughes (1891), 8 Mor. 172. 
 
 "In re Rogers ex parte Holland & Hannen (1891), 8 Mor. 243; In 
 re Drwcker ex parte Basden (1902), 2 K. B. 237; 71 L. J. K. B. 686, 
 9 Mm. 237. 
 
 1 Em parte Wolverhampton & Staffordshire Banking Co. in re Camp- 
 bell (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 32; 1 Mor. 261. Distinguish Ex parte Caled- 
 cott in re Mapleoaok (1876), 4 Gh. D. 150, where the title of the trustee 
 did not relate 'back. 
 
 a Wood v. Dunn (1866), T,. B. 2 Q. B. 73; 36 L. J. Q. B. 27. 
 
 'TurnbuU v. Robertson (1878), 47 L. J. C. P. 294; 38 L. T. 389. 
 
 'Stuart v. Grough (1888), 15.0. A. It. 299. 
 
148 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 4 
 
 Adjudication 
 conclusive. 
 
 Estoppel of 
 trustee. 
 
 Rights of 
 
 secured 
 
 creditors. 
 
 Proceedings 
 taken in 
 wrong 
 court. 
 
 over to a garnishing creditor before the garnishee 
 order was made absolute-. 
 
 Payments made after notice of an act of bankruptcy 
 by secured creditors to other creditors can not be 
 added to their mortgage- security". 
 
 By virtue of this sub-section and of section 77(4) 
 the adjudication so long as it stands is conclusive 
 against a third person that the act of bankruptcy on 
 which the adjudication was professedly founded was 
 in fact committed 7 . 
 
 The trustee steps into the shoes of the bankrupt 
 at the date when his 1 (the trustee's) title begins. He 
 is therefore liable to be met by the defences with 
 which the bankrupt could be met; and estoppel is one 
 of these. But after the date when his title commences 
 the conduct of the bankrupt in purporting to deal with 
 what formerly was his property cannot estop the trus- 
 tee 8 , unless there is some holding out of the bankrupt 
 by the trustee as his agent. 
 
 The rights of a secured creditor may be affected 
 by the relation back of the title of the trustee; for a 
 secured creditor who has notice of an available act of 
 bankruptcy cannot safely receive payment from his 
 debtor, and consequently the debtor cannot at least 
 after the presentation of- a petition 9 , make • a good 1 
 tender to him and require him to give up' his. securities 
 in payment of the amount due 10 .' 
 
 Section- 4(11) was enacted for the first time by sec- 
 tion 5 of The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1920. 
 
 Where the petition is inadvertently and not wil- 
 fully presented in the wrong court, the court, it seems, 
 may hear the petition, and make a receiving order, 
 
 'In re Welster ex parte O. R. (1907), 1 K. B. 623; 14 Mans. 20. 
 • 'In re Hall ex parte 0. R. (1907), 1 K. B. 875; 76 L. J. K. B. 
 546; 14 Mans. 82. 
 
 •Ex parte Learoyd m re Foulds (1878), 10 Oh. D. 3; 48 L. X 
 Bank. 17; and see section 77(4). Form No. 14 provides' that the 
 date of the filing of the petition shall be mentioned in the order. 
 
 'In re Ashmell ex parte Salomon (1912), 1 K. B. 390; 81 L. J. 
 K. B. 360; 19 Mans. 49: In re Evans ex parte Salomon (1916), H. B. 
 K. 111. See further as to the position of the trustee in Chapter VI. 
 
 8 See 6(3),' 25. 
 
 ™Ponsford Baker & Co. v. Union of London. Bank (1906), 2 Oh. 
 444 ; 75 L. J. Oh. 724 ; 13 Mans. 321. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 149 
 
 and may then invoke the power contained in section Section 5 
 6(4), and transfer the proceedings to the proper court 1 . 
 If the court refuses to make the order it may be made 
 on appeal 2 . Where a petition was presented in the 
 wrong court and adjourned from time to time at the 
 convenience of a petitioning creditor, and later another 
 'petition was presented in the proper court, and receiv- 
 ing orders made on both petitions on the same day, 
 the receiving order in the wrong court being made 
 first in point of time, a Divisional Court in England 
 refused to set aside the second receiving order, leav- 
 ing it open for an application to be made to the court 
 in which the first receiving order had been made to 
 stay proceedings there 3 . Semble, if a man leaves the 
 jurisdiction of a court in order to avoid its process, its 
 jurisdiction over him continues*. 
 
 Interim Receiver. 
 
 5. The court may, if it is shown to be necessary interim 
 for the protection of the estate, at any time ™f™ 
 after the presentation of a bankruptcy peti- appointed, 
 tion, and before a receiving order is made, 
 appoint an authorized trustee as interim 
 receiver of the property of the debtor, or of 
 any part thereof, and direct him to take 
 immediate possession thereof or of any part 
 thereof. 
 
 (2) The said interim receiver may, under the Powers of 
 direction of the court, summarily dispose of ^ceivCT 
 any perishable goods and carry on the busi- 
 ness of the debtor for all conservatory pur- 
 poses. 
 
 *Ex parte May in re Brighimore (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 37 ; 1 Mor. 
 253; In re and exi parte French (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 63 ; 6 Mor. 258; 
 Revell v. Blake (1873), L. R. 8 C. P. 533; 42 L. J. C. P. 195; In re 
 Buckland (1873), L. R. 15 Eq. 221. 
 
 2 _Ex parte May in re Brightmore (1884), 14 Q. B. ~D. 37 ; 1 Mor. 
 253; and see Ex parte Soanes in re Walker (1884), 13 Q B. D. 484; 
 V Mor. 193. 
 
 'In re Strick ex. parte Martin (1886), 3 Mor. 78. 
 
 4 7» re Williams (1873) L. R. 8 Oh. 690; 42 L. J. Bank. 28; Ex 
 parte North Kent Bank in re Holds-worth (1878), L. R. 9 Oh. D. 333; 
 47 L. J. Bank. 119. 
 
150 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 5 Cross References Act: Receiving order, 4(5) ; effect of, 6(1) (3) 
 -carrying on the business, 13(35), 20(1) (6), 27. 
 
 Cross References Rules : Appointment of interim receiver, 85; 
 damages if petition dismissed, 86. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Order appointing interim Teceiver, 15. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts, 1914, s. 8; 1883, s. 10(1). 
 
 Section 5(2) was added by section 8 of The Bank- 
 ruptcy Act Amendment Act 1921. 
 
 An order appointing an interim receiver does not 
 effect a transfer of the estate, but it terminates the 
 power of the debtor to charge or deal with his pro- 
 perty 5 . The interim receiver is very much in the same 
 position, and appointed for the same purpose, as the 
 omcial receiver in England ; although the English Act 
 also provides for the appointment of an interim 
 receiver. The object of his appointment is simply 
 the protection of the estate . An interim receiver 
 should not realize the debtor's property or deal with 
 or encumber it except when it is necessary to do so 
 for the protection or preservation of the property 7 . 
 When an interim receiver has been appointed and the 
 petition is afterwards dismissed on the ground that 
 the alleged debtor is not a debtor within section 2(o), 
 the interim receiver is not a trespasser or wrong-doer ; 
 for the court has jurisdiction over the subject-matter, 
 and the order, though erroneous, is not without juris- 
 diction altogether 8 . Where an interim receiver is 
 appointed the three months wages to which priority is 
 given by section 51(1), will be reckoned from the date 
 of the appointment of the interim receiver, and not 
 from the actual date of the receiving order 9 . 
 
 The court will not, by the appointment of an interim 
 
 'In re WeUs & Croft em parte 0. R. (1894), 72 L. T. 359; 2 
 Mans. 41. 
 
 'In re Berry, DuffleU v. Williams (1896), 1 Oh. 939"; 65 L. J. Oh. 
 245 ; 3 Mans.' 11. As to whether he can " represent the estate " : see 
 Smith v. McMillan (1879), 26 Grant 300. 
 
 "In re Wells & Croft ex parte O. R. (1894), 72 L. T. 359; 2 
 Mans. 41. 
 
 B In re A. B. & Co. (No. 2), (1900), 2 Q._B. 429; 69 L. J. Q. B. 
 568 ; 7 Mans. 268.. 
 
 In re Smith ex parte Trustee (1886) , 17 Q. B. D. 4 ; 55 1. J. Q- B. 
 288; 3 Mor. 63. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 151 
 
 receiver, interfere with the possession of a secured Section 6 
 creditor on the mere suggestion that a case may be - 
 found for impeaching the validity of the security 10 . 
 
 Where a strong prima facie case of bankruptcy is 
 made out and acts are shown which point to the neces- 
 sity for the protection of the estate, the court will 
 appoint an interim receiver 11 . After an interim 
 receiver has been appointed the court may on his appli- 
 cation restrain an authorized trustee who has been 
 appointed trustee on the petition of another creditor 
 from proceeding with the sale of the property 12 . 
 
 Trustee under Receiving Order. 
 
 6 (1) On the making of a receiving order the Receiving 
 trustee shall be thereby constituted receiver g n £ff v^ 
 of the property of the debtor and there- P^pj^y 
 after, except as directed by this Act, no 
 creditor to whom the debtor is indebted in 
 respect of any debt provable in bankruptcy 
 shall have any remedy against the property 
 or person of the debtor in respect of the 
 debt, or shall commence any action or other 
 legal proceedings unless with the leave of 
 the court and on such terms as the court may 
 impose. But this section shall not affect the 
 power of any secured creditor to realize or 
 otherwise deal with his security in the same 
 manner as he would have been entitled to 
 realize or deal with it if this section had not 
 been passed. 
 
 (2) The court may constitute as such receiver selection of 
 the trustee named in the petition or some trustee ' 
 other authorized trustee acting for or within 
 the same bankruptcy district as such named 
 
 "Ex parte Bayly in re Hart (1880), 15 Oh. D. 223. 
 
 u In re Rosenstem, (1921), 1 C. B. R. 393 (Panneton, J.). An 
 interim receiver has been appointed after petition filed where the debtor 
 having abandoned his place of business service on him has been im- 
 possible, it being shown to be in the interest of creditors that an interim 
 receiver be appointed: In re Xenos (1921), 1 C. B. R. 470. 
 
 12 In re Bonneville & Hollander (1921), 1 C. B. R. 378 (Panneton, 
 
152 
 ^Section 6 
 
 Property of 
 debtor 
 vested in 
 trustee. 
 
 Transfer of 
 proceedings 
 to another 
 division. 
 
 Order to 
 proceed in 
 same court. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT: 
 
 trustee, having regard >as far as the court 
 deems just to the wishes of the creditors as 
 proved by any sufficient evidence. 
 
 (3) On a receiving order being made against a 
 debtor the property of the debtor shall forth- 
 with pass to and vest in the trustee named 
 therein and in any case of change of trustee, 
 shall pass from trustee to trustee, and shall 
 vest in the trustee for the time being during 
 his continuance in office,' without any con- 
 veyance, assignment, or transfer whatever. 
 
 (4) The court, upon the application of the trus- 
 tee or of a creditor proceeding under auth- 
 ority of an ordinary resolution carried by 
 the votes of a majority in number of the 
 known, creditors, and upon satisfactory- 
 proof that the affairs of the debtor can be 
 more economically, administered within an- 
 other bankruptcy district or division, or for 
 other sufficient cause, may at any time by 
 order, transfer any proceedings under this 
 Act which are pending before it to another 
 bankruptcy district or division wherein 
 thereafter they may be carried on as effectu- 
 ally as if therein commenced, or the court in 
 which any such proceedings were com- 
 menced may of itself, for like cause upon 
 satisfactory proof that such proceedings 
 were commenced in good faith and not for 
 the purpose of attempting to vest authority 
 over the estate involved in any particular 
 authorized trustee or in the authorized trus- 
 tee, acting for or within any bankruptcy dis- 
 trict, and provided that such proceedings 
 were commenced within the province of the 
 debtor's locality, order that such proceed- 
 ings be retained, in the bankruptcy district 
 or division in which they were commenced, 
 although the court so ordering may not be 
 the court in which the proceedings ought to 
 have been commenced. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 153 
 
 Cross References Act: Trustee to be in the same position as Section 6 
 
 receiver, 17(2) ; rights of trustee as regards property pledged, 22(2) ; 
 
 property vesting in trustee on making of R. O., 6(3), 25; debts prov- 
 able in bankruptcy, 44 ; making of receiving order, 4(5) ; proceedings 
 by creditor where trustee refuses to act, 35 ■ secured creditor 
 defined, 2(gg) ; rights of secured creditors in ease of auth- 
 orized assignment, 10;' secured creditors generally, 42(10). 46; appoint- 
 ment of trustee, 14; relation back_of title of .trustee, 6(3), 25, cf. 4(10) ; 
 proceedings commenced in wrong court, 4(11), cf. 4(4) ; courts to be 
 auxiliary to each other, 71(2) ; stay of proceedings, 7, 13a. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Transfer of proceedings, 11, 12; 
 Judge may proceed in summary way to try certain issues, 120. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Order restraining action before receiv- 
 ing order, 17 ; receiving order, 14 ; order transferring proceedings, 16. 
 
 Analogous Legislation;: English Acts, 1914, ss. 7, 18(1). 53, 
 100(2) ; 1883, ss. 9, 20, 54, 97. Canadian Acts, 1875, ss. 16, 39, 90 ; 
 1869, ss. 10, 42, 66. 
 
 Analysis op Notes. 
 
 Receiving order contrasted with authorized assignment. 
 Receiving order in England and Canada. 
 When receiving order is made. 
 Trustee constituted receiver. 
 
 Power of court over actions and process against debtor and his 
 property — 
 
 Remedies against the property or person of the debtor. 
 
 Actions or other legal proceedings. 
 
 Statute of 'Limitations. 
 
 Principle on which the court will grant leave to sue. 
 
 Rights of secured creditors. 
 Property of debtor vests in trustee. 
 Trustee steps into the shoes of the debtor. 
 Vesting of property on change of trustee. 
 General. 
 Order made by the wrong court. 
 
 In three important respects a receiving order dif- Receiving 
 fers from an authorized assignment. There is no trasted with 
 • relation back of the title of the trustee in the case of JS&St 
 an assignment. In the case of a receiving order, the 
 property which vests in the trustee may be much 
 more extensive than that vesting under an authorized 
 assignment 2 . Finally an authorized assignment being 
 an act of bankruptcy may be avoided by the subse- 
 quent making of a receiving order founded on it s . 
 
 A receiving order has different results under the Receiving 
 English and Canadian Acts. Under the former it pro- England and 
 tects the estate until such time as a composition is Canada - 
 
 'See notes to 6(3), 25, 4(10), 9 and 10. 
 See notes to section 3. These differences are discussed in the notes 
 to sections 9 and 10, and' see notes to 4(6). 
 
154 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 6 
 
 When 
 receiving 
 order is 
 made. 
 
 Trustee con- 
 stituted 
 receiver. 
 
 Power of 
 Court over 
 actions, and 
 process 
 against 
 debtor and 
 his property, 
 
 agreed upon or an adjudication is made. With us it 
 divests the debtor of all his property*, and vests it in 
 the trustee. In England it is the adjudication which 
 does this. 
 
 A receiving order is made when it is pronounced; 
 not when it is drawn up and signed 5 . 
 
 The fact "that the trustee is appointed receiver of 
 the property of the debtor will in some respects 
 amplify the powers conferred on him by sections 17 
 to 22 of the Act 6 . It also affects the rights of judgment 
 creditors 7 . 
 
 Section 6(1), which deprives any creditor, to whom 
 the debtor is indebted in respect of any debt provable 
 in bankruptcy, of his remedies against the property or 
 person of the debtor arid denies him the right to com- 
 mence any action or other legal proceeding® unless 
 with leave of the court, must be compared with section 
 7. The effect of section 6(1) and section 7, when read 
 together, is as follows : — 
 
 (1) At any time after the presentation of a bank- 
 ruptcy petition the Court of Bankruptcy, or the court 
 in which proceedings are pending, may order any 
 action, execution or other proceeding against the per- 
 son or property of the debtor to stand stayed 8 . The 
 section is not limited to actions with respect to debts 
 provable in bankruptcy 9 ; 
 
 (2) On the making of the receiving order, 
 
 (a) No creditor to whom the debtor is indebted in 
 respect of any debt provable in bankruptcy 
 shall have any remedy against the property or 
 person of the debtor in respect of the debt 10 . 
 
 4, See sections' 6(3) and 25, and see notes to section 4(10). 
 
 'In re Manning (1885), 30 Oh. D. 480; 55 L. J. Oh. 613; Blount 
 v. Whitely (1899), 79 L. T. 635; 6 Mans. 48; per Ohitty, L.J., in In re 
 Calcott & Elvin's Contract (1898), 2 Oh. '460; 67 L. J. Oh. 553; 5 Mans. 
 208. 
 
 a As to the powers and duties of receivers appointed 'by the court 
 and the effeet of this appointment, see Kerr, Law & Practice of Receivers, 
 Sweet and Maxwell; Halsbury : Lots of England, Vol. XXIV.; Riviere: 
 The Law Relating to Receivers and" Managers, Stevens & Sons. 
 
 ' Stuart v. Grough (1888) , 15 O. A. R. 299. 
 
 "Section 7(1). 
 
 9 See notes to sections 7 and 63, and Rule 120. 
 
 "Section 6(1). ' 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 155 
 
 This will prevent the issuing of execution or Section 6 
 other process. 
 
 (b) No such creditor shall commence any action or 
 other legal proceedings unless with the leave of 
 the court 1 . 
 
 (c) The power of a secured creditor to realize or 
 otherwise deal with his security is not affected. 
 
 3. On the making of the receiving order every action, 
 execution or other proceeding for the recovery of a 
 debt provable in bankruptcy shall stand stayed 2 ; but 
 this is not to affect the rights of secured creditors to 
 realize or otherwise deal with their securities. 
 
 Section 6(1) applies to remedies for enforcing pay- Remedies 
 ment of the debt such as commitment orders 3 , but it pf£p°rtyor 
 does not apply to remedies by committal >or attach- person of 
 ment as punishment for an offence 4 . Nor semble, does 
 it interfere with the duty of a sheriff to sell under a 
 writ of execution issued before the receiving order 
 was made 5 ; nor does it apply to process already exe- 
 cuted 6 . As to whether the claim of creditors of an 
 undischarged bankrupt- to be paid out of a fund over 
 which the bankrupt had a testamentary power of 
 appointment is- a "claim against the property or per- 
 son of the debtor" queer e 7 . 
 
 1 Section 6(1). 
 
 2 Section 7(2). Under 2 he Windmg-Up Act, 1906, c. 23, executions 
 put in force after the making of the winding-up order are void : Risler v. 
 Alberta Newspapers*. Ltd. (1919), 46 D. L. R. 536. 
 
 8 In re Ryley ex parte 0. R. (1885) , 15 Q. B. D. 329; 54 Xj. J. Q. B. 
 420; 2 Mor. 171; and see Cooham v. Dalton (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 655; 
 44 I,. J. Oh. 702. 
 
 'In re Smith, Hands v. Andrews (1893), 2 Ch. 1; 62 L. J. Ch. 336, 
 and In re and ex parte Edgecome (1902), 2 K. B. 403 ; 71 L. J. K. B. 
 722; 9 Mans. 227; In re Wray (1887), 36 Ch*. D. 138; 56 L. J. Ch. 
 737, 1106; CoVhwm v. Dalton, supra, is overruled on this point. 
 
 5 Per Fry and Lopes, L.JJ. : Woolford's Trustees v. Levy (1892), 1 
 Q. B. 772, 781, 782; 61 L. J. Q. B. 546. No doubt section 7(2) would 
 apply to such a case, and see section 11(1) (3) (10). 
 
 'Earl of Lewes v. Barnett (1877) L. R. 6 Ch. 252; 47 L. J. Oh. 
 144. Where a defaulting trustee had been attached and imprisoned 
 before the date of the receiving order. 'See where a defaulting trustee 
 who had been served with notice of motion for a writ of attachment 
 filed a petition and then applied to "the Court of Bankruptcy to stay 
 further proceedings in the action in In re and ex parte HacKimtosh 
 (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 325; 1 Mor. 84. 
 
 n In re Guedalla (1905). 2 Oh. 331; 75 L. J. Ch. 52; 12 Mans. 
 392; In re Benzon, Bower v. Ghetwynd (1914), 2 Ch. 68 ; 83 L. J. Ch. 
 658 ; 21 Mans. 8. 
 
156 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 6 
 
 Actions or 
 other legal 
 proceedings. 
 
 Statute of 
 Limitations. 
 
 Principle on 
 which the 
 Court will 
 grant leave 
 to sue. 
 
 Rights of 
 
 secured 
 
 creditors. 
 
 The clause of section 6(1) prohibiting the com- 
 mencement of any actions or other legal proceedings 
 has 1 no reference to proceedings actually pending at 
 the date of the receiving order 8 . A receiving order once 
 pronounced is a bar to the commencement of an action 
 against the debtor 9 though the order may not have 
 been drawn up 10 . A creditor who has obtained a receiv- 
 ing order may not abandon it, for the order is for the 
 benefit of the whole body of creditors 1 . 
 
 Once the Statute of Limitations begins to run it 
 would seem that it continues to run in spite of the 
 bankruptcy, and of the prohibition contained in this 
 section 2 , but the Statute does not as regards claims 
 which arise during and in the bankruptcy, commence 
 to run before discharge 3 . A payment of dividends by 
 the trustee in bankruptcy is not a payment from which 
 a promise to pay the balance can be inferred 4 . 
 
 As to the principle on which the court will give 
 leave to commence actions or other legal proceedings 
 it has been said that there is no general rule that 
 when the questions involved are questions of bank- 
 ruptcy only, the Court of Bankruptcy is to try the 
 case 5 . The question in each case must be decided on 
 the facts of the case ; and the discretion of the court is 
 completely unlimited by any such general rule 6 . 
 
 Although section 6(1) purports to preserve the 
 power of a secured creditor to realize or otherwise 
 deal with his security, the fact that the trustee has been 
 made a receiver will prevent the holder of a bill of 
 sale from ousting the receiver from possession 7 ; and 
 
 8 They are dealt with by section 7(1) (2) ; In re Wray (1887), 36 
 Oh. D. 143; 56 L. J. Ch. 1106; In re Berry, DuffleU v. Williams 
 (1896), 1 Oh. 939, 946; 65 L. J. Oh. 245; 3 Mans. 11. 
 
 'As to the staying of pending actions, see section 7(1). 
 
 10 Blount v. Whitely (1899), 79 L. T. 635; 6 Mans. 48. 
 
 »S. O. 
 
 2 In re Benson, Bower v. Chetwynd (1914), 2 Oh. 68; 83 L. J. Ch. 
 658 ; 21 Mans. 8, and see as regards secured creditors : Oowt v. Walsh 
 (1884) , 9 O. A. R. 294. 
 
 s S. C. * S. 0. 
 
 "Sharp v. McHenry (1887), 55 L. T. 747. But see notes to secbon 
 63 and Rule 120. ' 
 
 8 S. O, see further notes to -section 7. 
 
 ■'Ex. parte Cochrane in re Mead (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 282; 44 L. J. 
 Bank. 87 ; In re Fells ex parte Andrews (1876) , 4 Oh. D. 509 ; 46 L. J. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. I57 
 
 it has been said that any person who claims a better section e 
 title than the receiver ought to apply to the Court of 
 Bankruptcy to enforce his rights 8 . The rights of a 
 secured creditor may also be affected by the relation 
 back of the trustee 's title 9 ; for a secured creditor who 
 has notice of an available act of bankruptcy by his 
 debtor cannot safely receive payment from his debtor 
 and consequently the debtor cannot, at least after 
 the presentation of a petition 10 , make a good tender 
 to him and require him to give up his securities on 
 payment of the amount due 1 . 
 
 The protection afforded to secured creditors does 
 not apply to those who do not fall within the definition 
 given in section 2(gg). Consequently, since the issuing 
 of a writ of sequestration at the instance of a creditor 
 does not make him a secured creditor 2 , the court may 
 under section 7(1), by an interim injunction restrain 
 further proceedings under the sequestration pending 
 the hearing of the petition in bankruptcy 3 , and when 
 the receiving order is made the action will stand 
 stayed. But as under certain Provincial Acts with 
 respect to liens, a creditor becomes a secured creditor 
 by the performance of work, he will not be restrained 
 from registering his claim for lien 4 . The rights of the 
 trustee against secured creditors who are pledgees or 
 pawnees are dealt with by section 22(2) . 
 
 Section 6(3) provides that on the making of a Property of 
 
 debtor Vest 
 in trustee. 
 
 receiving order the property of the debtor shall forth- de!ti " L ' 
 
 Bank. 25, and see as to the issuing of a sequestration by a mortgagee to 
 compel the appearance of the mortgagor : Ex parte Rogers in re Boustead 
 '(1881), 16 Ch. D. 665. 
 
 s Ex parte Cochrane in re Mead, supra. See where an order under 
 The Wmding-Up Act was made nuno pro tunc: Plummer v. Sullivan 
 Machinery Co. (1917) , 24 B. C. K. 104 ; 2 W. W. K. 229. 
 
 "See section 4(10). 
 
 "Sections 6(3) and 25, and see notes to 4(10). 
 
 1 Ponsford, Baker & Go. v. Union of London Bank (1906), 2 Ch. 
 444 ; 75 L. J. Oh. 724 ; 13 Mans. 321. 
 
 'Ex parte Brown m re Hastings (1892), 61 L. J. Q. B. 654 ; 9 Mor. 
 234. 
 
 3 Ex parte Brown in re Bastings, supra. 
 
 4 See Clinton Thresher Co. (1910) , 1 O. W. N. 445 ; 15 O. W. R. 319 ; 
 In re The Empire Brewing & Malting Co.; Rourke & Cass' Claim (1891) , 
 8 Man. L. R. 424 ; and see as to Woodmen's Liens : Good v. Nepisiquit 
 Lumber Co. (1912), 41 N. B. ,R. 57, and maritime liens: In re The 
 Fort George Lumber Go. (1913), 48 S. G.R. 593. 
 
158 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Trustee 
 steps into 
 shoes of 
 debtor. 
 
 Section 6 with pass to and vest in the trustee named therein 6 . 
 The receiving order is made when the decision is pro- 
 nounced, not when the order is signed . The property 
 of the debtor means the property of the debtor divisible 
 amongst his creditors. It comprises all such property 
 as may belong to or be vested in the debtor at the date 
 of the presentation of any bankruptcy petition, and 
 all property which may be acquired by Or devolve on 
 him before his discharge 7 . As the receiving order 
 vests 8 in the trustee all the property of the debtor, 
 the debtor no longer can deal with the property, or 
 give a valid receipt for the balance of the purchase 
 money due under a contract of sale entered into before 
 the receiving order. If the purchaser pays the moneys 
 to the. debtor it is his misfortune that he has paid the 
 money to a person who has ceased to. be the owner 
 of the property 9 . 
 
 Generally speaking the trustee steps into the shoes 
 of the bankrupt. That is to say that Where the title 
 of the trustee does not relate back to avoid the trans- 
 action, and where the transaction is not against the 
 bankruptcy law, or where the trustee has no statutory 
 right of attacking transactions of the bankrupt the 
 trustee stands in no better position than the bankrupt 10 . 
 The position of the trustee is fully treated in Chapter 
 VI. 
 
 "It is suggested that the vesting is by force of the statute. See 
 English Act, 1914, s. 53, and In re Calcott & Elvin's contract , (1898) , 2 
 Ch. 464 ; 67 L. J. Oh. 553 ; 5. Mans. 208 ; compare sections 10 and 15 (3) . 
 It was said in Callender v. Colonial Secretary of Lagos (1891), A. C. 
 460, 466 : " probably none of the Bankruptcy Aets would be held to 
 pass land more completely than the bankrupt himself could pass it by 
 conveyance". See where an assignee is appointed liquidator: Kinsman 
 v. Parker (1919), 52 N. S. R^558; 1 C. B. R. 161. 
 
 'In re Manning (1885), 30 Oh. D. 480; 55 L. J. Oh. 613; Blount 
 v. Whitely (1899), 79 L. T. 635; 6 Mans. 48. 
 
 7 Section 25: Compare the property which vests in the trustee on 
 the making of an authorized assignment, section 10. Section 6(3) must 
 be read with section 4(10) and section 32. 
 
 8 As to the effect of this statutory vesting, see notes to 11(4). 
 After-acquired property vests in the trustee in a qualified 1 sense until 
 he intervenes. See notes to sections 25 and 34. 
 
 " Ex parte RabUdge in re Pooley (1878) , 8 Oh. 367 ; 48 L. J. Bank. 
 15, and see Jenks v. Doran (1880),' 5 O. A. R. 558. as to a promissory 
 note put in. circulation after the date of the receiving order ; and see 
 notes to section 4(10). 
 
 10 In re Wilson Estate (1915), 33 O. L. R. 501. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 159 
 
 In any case of change of trustee the property of Section 6 
 the debtor passes from trustee to trustee and vests in vesting of 
 the trustee for the time being during his continuance J^g^of 011 
 in office without any conveyance, assignment or trans- trustee, 
 f er whatever 1 . 
 
 The words "shall vest in the trustee for the time 
 being, during his continuance in office without any con- 
 veyance, assignment or transfer whatever" appear to 
 refer to the case Where there is a change of- trustee and 
 not to the vesting in the first trustee 2 . Section 11(4) 
 provides that no receiving order or authorized assign- 
 ment or other document made or executed under auth- 
 ority of the Act shall be within the operation of any 
 provincial legislative enactment relating to deeds, 
 mortgages, judgments, bills of sale, chattel mortgages, 
 property or registration of documents affecting title 
 to or liens or charges upon property real or personal, 
 moveable or immoveable. 
 
 A bank can 1 be compelled to pay over to the trustee General, 
 without the production of the deposit receipt moneys 
 deposited by the bankrupt prior to his bankruptcy 3 . 
 As to the property of a partnership where one partner 
 dies and the surviving partners agree to convey all 
 the partnership assets to his executrix in consideration 
 of a release from all liability for any balance due, and 
 the partnership subsequently becomes insolvent, see 
 Davidson v, Papps*. 
 
 Section 4(11) and. 6(4) read together would seem Orders made 
 to have the effect of validating an order of the wrong ^^t. wr ° ns 
 court made inadvertently 5 . So long as the petition 
 is inadvertently 'and not wilfully presented in the 
 wrong court, and the conditions of section 6(4) com- 
 plied with, the registrar may hear the petition and 
 make a receiving order, and may then invoke the 
 
 ^Section 6(3-) : Section 15(1) provides for the substitution of 
 one trustee for another by the creditors. 'Sections 15(2) and 14(10) 
 provide for the removal, substitution or appointment of trustees by the 
 court. 
 
 2 Ad proxvmum antecedens fiat relatio nisi impediatur sententia : 
 The Molsons Bank v. Salter (1890), 18 S. C. K. 88. 
 
 'Bank of Montreal v. Little (1870), 17 Gr..313. 
 
 4 1880, 28 Gr. 91. 
 
 1 See Ex parte and in re French (1889) , 24 Q. B. D. 63 ; 6 Mor. 258. 
 
160 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 7 power contained in this section, and transfer the pro- 
 ceedings to the proper court 8 . If the registrar refuses 
 to make the order, it may be made on appeal 7 . 
 
 Power to 
 
 stay 
 proceedings. 
 
 Stay of 
 proceedings. 
 
 Stay of Proceedings. 
 
 7 (1) The court may, at any time after the pre- 
 sentation of a bankruptcy petition against a 
 debtor, order that any action, execution or 
 other proceeding against the person or pro- 
 perty of the debtor pending in any court 
 other than the court having jurisdiction in 
 bankruptcy shall stand stayed untii the last 
 mentioned court shall otherwise order, 
 whereupon such action, execution or other 
 proceeding shall stand stayed accordingly; 
 and the court in which any such proceeding's • 
 are pending may likewise, Oh proof that a 
 bankruptcy petition has been presented 
 against the debtor, stay such proceedings 
 until the first mentioned court shall other- 
 wise order. 
 
 (2) On the making of a receiving order every 
 such action, execution or other proceeding 
 for the recovery of a debt provable in bank- 
 ruptcy shall, subject to the provisions of the 
 next preceding section as to the rights of 
 secured creditors, stand stayed unless and 
 until the court shall, on such terms as it may 
 think just, otherwise order. 
 
 Cross References Acti No remedy after the making of receiving 
 order, 6(1) ; right of landlord to distrain to. cease, 52(1) ; debts prov- 
 able, 44 ; effect of discharge, 61 ; jurisdiction of court, 63 ; stay of pro- 
 ceedings in assignment and composition cases, 13a. 
 
 Cross References Rales: Presentation of petition, 76'; proceed- 
 ings under The Winding-Up Act, 13 ; judge may proceed in a summary 
 way to try certain issues, 120. 
 
 'Ex parte May pi re Brightmore (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 37; 1 Mor. 
 253 ; In re and exi parte French, supra ; Bevell v. Blake (1873) , L. E. a 
 C. P. 533 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 195 ; and see on the English Act of 1869, 
 where proceedings in the wrong court were not a nullity : In re Buclc- 
 land (1873), L. R. 15 Eg. 221. 
 
 ''Ex parte May m re Brightmore,, supra, and see Ex parte Soames 
 m re Walker (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 484 ; 1 Mor. 193. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 161 
 
 Cross References Forms: Order restraining action before receiv- Section 7 
 ing order, 17. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1014, s. 9(1). Canadian 
 Acts, 1875, ss. 36, 90; 1869, ss. 42, 66. The Winding-Up Act, 1906, 
 ss. 22, 23, 84, 133. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 General intention to have all matters dealt with in Bankruptcy 
 Court. 
 
 •Cases in which actions may proceed outside Bankruptcy Court. 
 (a) Actions by secured creditors. 
 (6) Actions in respect of non-iprovable debts. 
 
 (c) Actions' outside the jurisdiction. 
 
 (d) Miscellaneous cases. 
 
 This section does not apply to the case of an auth- 
 orized assignment 7 . The petition is presented when 
 it is filed 8 . 
 
 Section 7 must be read with sections 6(1) and 63. 
 
 Section 7(1) is in terms wide enough to include all 
 actions, executions, or other legal proceedings whether 
 in respect of a debt provable in bankruptcy or other- 
 wise ; but the power of restraint is not generally exer- 
 cised in England when the question does not affect the 
 estate generally, or where questions of bankruptcy law 
 are not involved ; or where proceedings in bankruptcy 
 might limit the rights of some of the litigants by deny- 
 ing, for example, the right of appeal with respect to 
 title to land 9 . 
 
 Section 7(2) refers only to actions, executions or 
 other proceedings against the property or person of 
 the debtor for the recovery of a debt provable in bank- 
 ruptcy 10 . The principles on which the court acts under 
 section 7(1) in issuing an injunction and those on 
 which it acts under 7(2) in permitting an action to 
 continue, are harmonious and similar to those under 
 which the jurisdiction under 6(1) is exercised. Section 
 7(2) should be read with section 11(1) and 11(10). 
 
 ' For the case of an authorized assignment, see sec. 13a. 
 
 •Rule : 76. 
 
 'Ex parte Reynolds in re Burnett (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 169; 54 
 L- J. Q. B. 354; 2 Mor. 147; Sharp v. HcHenry (1887), 55 L. T. 
 '47. See for a fuller discussion on questions of jurisdiction and 
 policy, notes to section 63, and see Rule 120. 
 
 10 See as to debts provable in bankruptcy, section 44. 
 
 B.O.— 11 
 
162 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 7 The intention is that on the making of the receiv- 
 
 Generai ing order no more litigation between the bankrupt and 
 have aii n to ^ s creditors' shall be permitted, except in special cir- 
 
 wShin SdealtCUmS * anCeS ' aS wnere a case i s a ^ the time of bank- 
 Bankruptcy ruptcy ripe for trial, in which case the amount of the 
 proof against the bankrupt's estate would not be seri- ' 
 ously affected 1 . There is no general rule in England 
 that when the questions involved are questions .of 
 bankruptcy only, the Court of Bankruptcy is to try the 
 case 2 . The granting of the injunction or permission 
 to proceed is discretionary 3 . 
 Cases in Generally speaking there are four classes of actions 
 
 may proceed 8 or proceedings which the court in England will not 
 Bankruptcy rest rain, but will permit to proceed; these are:— 
 
 (a) Actions or proceedings by secured creditors. 
 
 (b) Actions or proceedings in respect of matters 
 not provable in bankruptcy. 
 
 (c) Certain actions outside the jurisdiction. 
 
 (d) Miscellaneous' cases. 
 
 . (a) Both sections 6(1) and 7(2) preserve the rights of 
 
 Actions, etc., , ,., , .. ,. ,, 
 
 by secured secured creditors, and actions, executions or other pro- 
 creditors. ce edings by them to realize or otherwise deal with 
 their security will not be restrained 4 . Thus the court 
 in England will not restrain an equitable second mort- 
 gagee from proceeding in the Chancery Division 
 against the trustee in bankruptcy of the mortgagor, 
 
 1 Broionscombe v. Fair (1888), 58 L. T. 85. See as to the con- 
 stitutionality of such legislation: Crombie v. Jackson (1874), 34 U. C. 
 Q. B. 575, and notes to section 63. 
 
 2 Sharp v. MoHenry (1887), 55 L. T. 747. See generally notes to 
 section 63 and Rule 120. 
 
 'Ex parte MiUs in re Manning (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 594; 40 L. J. 
 Bank. 89; Ex parte Rogers in re Boustead (1881), 16 Ch. D. 665. 
 
 4 See as to the other policy under section 50 of the Act of 1869 : 
 Archibald v. Haldan (1870), 30 U. C. Q. B. 30; Crombie v. Jackson 
 (1874), 34 U. C. Q. B. 575, and cases cited in Henderson v. Kerr 
 (1875), 22 Gr. 91, and the wider rule under The Windmg-Up Act: Re 
 Kurtz v. McLean, Ltd. (1908), 11 O. W. R. 437; National Trust Co. 
 v. Trusts & Guarantee Co.. Re Raven Lake Portland Cement Co. (1911), 
 24 O. L. R. 246. Compare In re David Lloyd & Go. (1877), 6 Ch. D. 
 339; Capital Trust Corporation, Ltd. v. The Yellowhead Pass Coal 
 , & Coke Co., Ltd. (1916), 9 A. L. R. 463 ; 33 W. L, R. 873; 27 D. t. B. 
 25; In re The Essea Land & Timber Co., Trout's Case (1891), 21 O. R. 
 367; In re Longdendale Cotton Spinning Co. (1878), 8 Ch. D. 150; as 
 to the displacement of a receiver appointed by debenture holders see 
 In re Joshua Stubbs, Ltd. (1881), 1 Ch. 475. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 163 
 
 and the first mortgagee, claiming an equitable charge Section 7 
 on the property, redemption, and, if necessary, fore- 
 closure 5 . But where it is desired to issue a sequestra- 
 tion to compel appearance of the defendant in a suit by 
 a mortgagee to enforce his security semble, leave of 
 the Court of Bankruptcy should first be obtained 6 ; and 
 while it may be that the court has power to prevent 
 a sale of any part of a bankrupt's property while an 
 administration is pending, if it is of the opinion that 
 such a sale would interfere with the due administration 
 of the estate by the trustee, still for the court to inter- 
 fere the sale must probably be a sale of the same 
 property, and of the same interest in that property as . 
 that with which the trustee has to deal 7 . 
 
 The court in England will not restrain actions, exe- (&) 
 cutions or other proceedings in respect of non-prov- respect of 
 able debts 8 . Thus as alimony payable under an order non-provable 
 of the Divorce Court is not a debt provable in bank- 
 ruptcy, steps can be taken to enforce payment of ali- 
 mony due after bankruptcy, notwithstanding the 
 receiving order 9 , but an annuity payable under a 
 separation deed is provable in bankruptcy, and an 
 action cannot be maintained to enforce it 10 . Arrears of 
 alimony which became arrears before bankruptcy stand 
 on a different footing from future payments of ali- 
 mony 1 . 
 
 The court will not interfere with actions outside (o) 
 the jurisdiction 2 , when foreign creditors resident oiusWethe 
 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 ''Ex parte Hirst in re Wherly (1879), 11 Ch. D. 278; White v. 
 Simmons (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 555; 40 L. J. Ch. 689. 
 
 'Ex parte Rogers in re Boustead (1881), 16 Oh. D. 665. 
 
 'Re Evelyn ex. parte General Pullic Works (1894), 2 Q. B. 302. 
 
 8 See under The Insolvent Act of 1869: Burke v. McWhirter (1874), 
 35 U. C. Q. B. 1; Crombie v. Jackson (1874), 34 U. C. Q. B. 575; 
 Archibald v. Haldaru, supra, see generally : Ex parte Baum in re Edwards 
 (1874), L..R. 9 Ch. 673; 44 C. J. Bank. 25. > 
 
 "Linton v. Linton (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 239; 54 L. J. Q. B. 529>; 2 
 Mor. 179. 
 
 10 Victor v. Victor (1912). 1 K. B. 247; 81 L. J. K. B. 354; 19 
 Mans. 53. 
 
 1 Linton v. Linton (18851; 15 Q. B D. 239: 54 L. J. Q. B. 529: 2 
 Mor. 179; In re Sffllwell, Brodrick v. Stillwell (1916), 1 Oh. 365. 
 
 2 As to whether outside the jurisdiction means outside the Domin- 
 ion, see section 63 and Stewart v. Lepage (1916), 53 S. C. R. 337; In 
 re Tobique Gypsum Go. (1903), 6 O. L. R. 515; Baxter v. Central 
 Bank (1891), 20 0. R. 214. 
 
164 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 (d) 
 
 Miscel- 
 laneous 
 cases. 
 
 Section. 7. abroad are suing 'abroad, and the injunction will be 
 wholly ineffectual 3 . Nor will an incumbrancer on 
 immoveable property situate in a foreign country, who 
 has instituted legal proceedings in that country for 
 the purpose of enforcing his rights, be restrained from 
 prosecuting such proceedings if the party seeking to 
 restrain him may appear before the foreign tribunal 
 and assert his rights 4 . But the court may in certain 
 cases restrain proceedings outside the jurisdiction ; as 
 where the person suing had already come in under an 
 inspectorship deed", or where he is resident within 
 the jurisdiction 6 . Generally speaking the court will 
 not interfere by injunction unless it is clear that there 
 will thereby be no interference with the rights of the 
 plaintiff 7 ; or that thereby expenses will be saved 8 , or 
 that the injunction is needed to protect the property 
 of the bankrupt . 
 
 In certain other cases the court in England will exer- 
 cise its discretion to allow actions or other proceedings 
 to be continued. Though the court will not generally 
 permit proceedings to continue in any other court with 
 respect to. debts which are provable in the bankruptcy, 
 an exception exists in the case of debts provable in 
 bankruptcy to which the discharge of the bankrupt wijl 
 be no defence 10 . Such actions may be allowed to pro- 
 ceed to judgment ; but although proof may be made in 
 bankruptcy for the amount of the judgment the judg- 
 ment cannot be enforced 1 . The court will restrain a 
 sale by sequestrators to enforce compliance with an 
 
 'In re Chapman (1872), L. ;R. 15 Eq. 75 ; 42 L. J. Bank. 38. 
 
 4 Moor v. Anglo-Italian Bank (1879), 10 Oh. D. 681. 
 
 'In re and ex parte Tait (1872), L. R. 13 Eq. 311; 41 L. J. Bank. 
 32. 
 
 "Ex parte Ormiston in re Distin (1871), 24 L. T. (N.S.) 197, and 
 see as to sequestration: Ex parte Rogers in re Boustead (1880), 16 
 Oh. D. 665. 
 
 'See where representations had heen made which had induced the 
 plaintiff to delay proceedings for some time: In re Lake Superior 
 Native Copper Co., Ltd. (1885), 9 O. R. 277. 
 
 *In re Spalding ex parte 6. R. (1889), 6 Mor. 163. 
 
 In re Chapman, supra. 
 
 "Section 61. 
 
 l Ross v. Chitteridge (1883), 52 L. J. Oh. 280; 48 L. T. (N.S.) 117; 
 Ex parte Coker in re Blake (1875), L. R. 10 Oh. 652; 44 L. J. Bank. 
 126. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 165 
 
 order for the payment of money, for a creditor who has section 8 
 obtained an order of sequestration does not become a 
 secured creditor by reason merely of having obtained 
 the writ 2 . Where a creditor commenced an action after 
 the making of the receiving order in a matter involving 
 a very large amount, and having reference to the title 
 of real estate, Kay, J-, refused to stay proceedings in 
 the Chancery Division 3 . In a case under The Wind- 
 ing-Up Act, the court allowed a servant of the company 
 to sue the company for arrears of. wages so that he 
 might on the execution being returned unsatisfied sue 
 the directors*. When at the time of the presentation 
 of the petition the grantee of a bill of sale is in actual 
 possession of the property comprised in the deed the 
 court will not interfere by injunction with the exer- 
 cise of his legal rights on the mere suggestion that 
 there may be a possibility of impeaching the deed 5 . 
 The Bankruptcy Court, it has been said, cannot go into 
 the question of the amount of maintenance in an admin- 
 istration action. Such an action will be continued in 
 the proper court 6 . Where action is brought against two 
 partners on a bill of exchange against one of whom a 
 receiving order has been made, the Court may either 
 restrain the plaintiff from proceeding against the 
 insolvent acceptor; or may allow the action to pro- 
 ceed and restrain the plaintiff from enforcing his judg- 
 ment against the property or person of the insolvent 
 acceptor 7 . As to order of committal on judgment 
 summons, see In re Nuthall, Ford v. Nuthall*. 
 
 2 In re Hastings ex parte Brown (1892), 61 L. J. Q. B. 654; 9 
 Mot. 234; Ex parte Hughes in re Brown (1871), L,. R. 12 Eq. 137. 
 
 'Sharp v. McHenry (1886), 55 L. T. 747. 
 
 4 In re Lake Winnipeg Transportation, Lumber & Trading Co., 
 Ltd. (1891), 7 M. L. R. 602. 
 
 'Ex parte Bayly in re Hart (1880), 15 Oh. D. 223. 
 
 SJjykes, Jaram v. Holmes (1909), 53 Sol. J. 267. 
 
 7 Ex parte Mills in re Manning (1871),HL. R. 6 Oh. 594; 40 L. J. 
 Bank. 89; .but see Ex parte Isaac in re De Vecchi (1870), L. R. 6 Ch. 
 58 ; 40 L. J. Rank. 19. 
 
 8 (1891), 8 Mor. 106. 
 
 8 (1) The provisions of this Part of this Act Application 
 shall not apply to wage-earners or to per- ofPartI- 
 
166 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 8 
 
 Certain acts 
 of debtor 
 not deemed 
 an available 
 act of 
 bankruptcy. 
 
 sons engaged solely in farming or the tillage 
 of the soil. 
 (2) Notwithstanding anything in this Part ap- 
 pearing, no act or omission of a debtor in 
 respect of any debt which, — 
 (a) was contracted or existed before the 
 
 coming into operation of this Act ; or 
 (&) is or is evidenced by any judgment or 
 negotiable or renewable instrument the 
 cause or consideration whereof (whether 
 or not such judgment or instrument is a 
 renewal or one of several renewals, had or 
 made, before or after the coming into 
 force of this Act, proceeding from the 
 same cause or consideration) existed be- 
 fore the coming into operation of this Act; 
 shall be deemed" an available act of bank- 
 ruptcy, nor shall any such debt be deemed 
 sufficient to found the presentation of a 
 bankruptcy petition, but it shall be provable 
 in any proceedings otherwise founded under 
 this Part, and otherwise. 
 
 Cross References Act: Wage earners are defined, 2(kk) ; acts of 
 bankruptcy defined, 3 ; proof of debts, 45 ; coming into operation of 
 the Act, 98; Part I. is sections 3 to 8 inclusive. 
 
 Section 8(1) The part of the Act referred to is Part I., Bank- 
 ruptcy and Receiving Orders, sections 3 to 8 inclus- 
 ive. 
 
 Section 8(2) The Act was brought into force on July 1st, 1920-' 
 See notes to section 98. 
 
 If section 8(2) was intended to prevent any creditor • 
 from founding a bankruptcy petition on an act of 
 bankruptcy occurring prior to the coming into opera- 
 tion of the Act; or to use as a petitioning creditor's 
 debt, any debt which was contracted or existed before 
 the coming into operation of the Act, the language is 
 perhaps not as happy as it might have been. 
 
 It is difficult to point out any act or omission -with 
 respect to a debt which the Statute makes an act of 
 bankruptcy. The section closest in point seems to be 
 3(e) ; but it can be argued that the acts there referred 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. . 167 
 
 to are acts or omissions with respect to executions sections 
 and not acts or omissions with respect to debts. 
 
 The fact that at most only one act of bankruptcy- 
 is declared not to be an available act of bankruptcy 
 if it occurred prior to the coming into operation of the 
 Act, may perhaps be urged as an argument that the 
 Act is restrospective with respect to other acts of bank- 
 ruptcy. Were it not for this argument little could be 
 said against the view that acts of bankruptcy occurring 
 before the coming into operation of the Act, are not 
 available acts of bankruptcy 9 - 
 
 If the words "nor shall any such debt be deemed 
 sufficient to found the presentation of a bankruptcy 
 petition ' ' refer to the debt of five hundred dollars men- 
 tioned in section 4(3) (a), it will prevent a creditor 
 who has only one claim against the debtor, and that 
 incurred before 1st of July, 1920, from himself peti- 
 tioning; though it may be held that the wording of 
 section 8(2) does not prevent the debt referred to being 
 used by another creditor to make the required aggre- 
 gate of five hundred dollars ; for it would seem that the 
 question of retrospectivity or otherwise has no appli- 
 cation to a debt presently payable. 
 
 It has been held that on an unopposed motion, in 
 the absence of evidence as to when a debt was con- 
 tracted or existed, a receiving order may be made 10 . 
 
 8 See In re and ex parte Pratt (1884) . 12 Q. B. D. 334 ; and notes 
 to section 98. 
 
 "Per Holmested, R., in Fisher v. Wilkie, Ltd. (1920), 19 O. W. N. 
 251. 
 
168 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 Assignments and Compositions. 
 
 Sections 
 9, 10, 10A 
 
 Assignment 
 fbr general 
 benefit of 
 creditors. 
 
 Form of 
 assignment. 
 
 Piling of 
 assignment 
 in court by 
 authorized 
 
 trustee. 
 
 Assignments. 
 
 9. Any insolvent debtor whose liabilities to cre- 
 
 ditors, provable as debts under this Act, 
 exceed five hundred dollars, may, at any 
 time prior to the making of a receiving order 
 against him, make to an authorized trustee 
 appointed pursuant to section fourteen with 
 authority in the locality of the debtor, an 
 assignment of all his property for the gen- 
 eral benefit of his creditors. An assignment 
 so made is in this Act referred to as an 
 ' ' authorized assignment, ' ' and every assign- 
 ment of his. property other than an author- 
 ized assignment made by an insolvent debtor 
 for the general benefit of his creditors shall 
 be null and void. 
 
 10. Every authorized assignment shall be valid 
 and sufficient if it is in the form provided by 
 General Rules or in words to the like effect; 
 and an assignment so expressed shall, sub- 
 ject to the rights of secured creditors, vest 
 in the trustee all the property of the assignor 
 at the time of the assignment excepting such 
 thereof as is held by the assignor in trust for 
 any other person and such thereof as is, 
 against the assignor, exempt from execution 
 or seizure under legal process in accordance 
 with the laws of the province within which 
 the property is situate and within which the 
 debtor resides. 
 
 10a. (1) Every authorized trustee to whom an 
 assignment is made under section nine of 
 this Act shall within four days of such 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT._ 169 
 
 assignment file, in the court having jurisdic- sections 
 tion in the locality of the debtor, the said_^ ! 
 
 assignment, and should another authorized 
 trustee he subsequently appointed in his 
 stead such other trustee shall within four 
 days of his appointment give notice thereof 
 to the said court. 
 (2) This section, substituting 'forthwith' for Retroactive 
 'within four days of such assignment' and effect 
 for ' within four days of his appointment', 
 shall apply to all authorized assignments 
 made and to all authorized trustees substi- 
 tuted since the coming into force of this 
 Act. 
 
 Cross References Act: Insolvent defined, 2(i) ; debtor defined, 
 2(o) ; making of R. O., 4(6) ; A. A. defined, 2(f) ; is an act of 'bank- 
 ruptcy, 3(a) ; administration under A. A. or under R. O., 4(6) ; form 
 and effect of, 10; takes precedence in certain eases', 11(1) (10), Of. 
 11(3) r to be registered, 11(8) (14) (15) ; notice of to be gazetted and 
 published, 11(4); mistakes in may be cured, 12; may be annulled, 
 13(18) ; locality of debtor defined. 2(x) ; persons authorized to act for 
 corporations, partnerships and firms. 85 ; debts provable, 44 ; property 
 defined, 2(dd) ; property not divisible among creditors, 25; stay of pro- 
 ceedings in case of authorized assignment, 13». 
 
 Cross References Forms: Assignment for the General Benefit of 
 Creditors, 18, 19. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: Canadian Act, 1875, sfs. 14, 15, 16. Cf. 
 
 English Act, 1914, ss. 3, 6, 7. Cf. Provincial Assignments and Prefer- 
 ences Acts: R S. N. 'S. 1900, c. 145, ss. 10, 5; 1900, c. 34, s. 1. 
 R. S. N. B. 1903, e. 141, ss. 3. 4. P. E. I. 1898, e. 4, ss. 4, 5. 
 R. S. 0. 1914, c. 134, ss. 8, 9. E.. S. M. 1913, c. 12, ss. 5, 6. 7. 
 R. S. B. C. 1911, c. 13, ss. 3, 4. 5, 43, and see 69. Alberta 1907, 
 c. 6, ss. 5, 6, 7. R. S. 'S. 1909, c. 142, ss. 6. 7, 8. N. W. T., see Alberta 
 1907, c. 6, ss. 5, 6, 7. 
 
 Anaitsis of Notes. 
 
 Authorized assignment compared with receiving order. 
 First: Property passing under authorized assignment. 
 
 Exception from property vesting under authorized assignment. 
 
 In what way the property vests in the trustee. 
 
 Trustee steps into the shoes of the ass'gnor. 
 Second : No relation back of title of trustee. 
 Third : An authorized assignment an act of bankruptcy. 
 Whether a trustee under an authorized assignment may be a trustee 
 
 de son tort. 
 Position of creditors undeT assignment avoided by bankruptcy. 
 Rights of secured creditors. 
 _Who may make an assignment. 
 When assignment may be made. 
 
170 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Sections 
 9. 10, 10A 
 
 Authorized 
 
 assignment 
 
 compared 
 
 with 
 
 receiving 
 
 order. 
 
 First ; 
 
 property 
 
 passing 
 
 under 
 
 authorized 
 
 assignment. 
 
 Assignment to trustee outside locality of debtor. 
 Avoidance of assignment other than authorized assignment. 
 As to avoiding assignments under Provincial Acts. 
 Form, of authorized assignment. 
 Effect of assignment on insurance policy. 
 Assignment not a " Sale ". 
 •Assignment for fraudulent purpose. 
 
 In three important respects an authorized assign- 
 ment differs from a receiving order. In the first place 
 the property of the debtor vesting in the trustee is 
 much lesis extensive under an authorized assignment 
 than it is under a receiving order. Secondly, there is 
 no relation back of the title of the trustee under an 
 authorized assignment 1 . Thirdly, as an authorized 
 assignment is an act of bankruptcy, the title of the 
 trustee under an authorized assignment may, it is con- 
 ceived, be overreached by the title of the trustee under 
 a subsequent receiving order; and this raises the fur- 
 ther question whether the trustee under the author- 
 ized assignment will be' a trustee de son tort for the 
 period covered by. the relation back of the title of the 
 new trustee, as may be the trustee in England who 
 acts under a deed of arrangement registered in pursu- 
 ance of THe Deeds Arrangement Act 2 . 
 
 The property 3 of the assignor, which vests in the 
 trustee by reason of the assignment, is in two ways 
 different from that Which vests under a receiving- 
 order. As there is no relation back of the title of the 
 trustee under an authorized assignment 4 , the trustee 
 will not be entitled to property which would be cov- 
 ered by the relation back of the title of the trustee 
 under a receiving order. It is only "the property of 
 the assignor at the time of the assignment" which 
 vests 5 . Secondly, under a receiving order, but hot 
 under an authorized assignment, the trustee is entitled 
 to all property which may be acquired by or devolve on 
 the bankrupt before his discharge 6 . An assignment 
 by members of a partnership will pass not only part- 
 
 1 See notes to section 4(10). 
 
 2 (1914) , 4 & 5 Geo. V.' c. 47. o . 
 "As to what property includes, see notes to sections 2(dd) and «o. 
 1 Compare 6(3), 25, 9, 10. and see notes to section 4(10). 
 "Section 10, see Form 18, which contains wider words. 
 
 'Section 25. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 171 
 
 nership property but also separate property 7 , but an sections 
 assignment by one partner only in his own name will ' ' 
 pass no more than his individual property and his inter- 
 est in the partnership property 8 ; it will not make the 
 other partners insolvent or transfer their property 
 or interest to the assignee 9 , for one partner cannot 
 assign the partnership assets 10 . 
 
 From the property so described as vesting in the Exception 
 trustee under an authorized assignment there are two property 
 exceptions. These are property held by the assignor auttorized der 
 in trust for some other person, and the assignor's non- assignment, 
 exigible property 1 . These exceptions are fully dis- 
 cussed in section 25. The Ontario courts have inter- 
 preted the corresponding section of The Ontario 
 Assignments Act as vesting in the trustee all the pro- 
 perty of the debtor, except the property expressed to 
 be excepted 2 . In Manitoba on the other hand on the 
 provisions of the Manitoba Act, the interpretation has 
 been that only such property vests in the trustee as is 
 liable to seizure, attachment or other process of law at 
 the suit of a creditor 3 . 
 
 Whether the vesting is by force of the statute or by in what way 
 virtue of the assignment qucere*. Under the Act of ^ t ^° p t e ^ y 
 1864, the assignment when made, even to an official trustee, 
 assignee, was not valid unless accepted by or acted 
 upon by the assignee 5 . But under the Act of 1874, it 
 was held that the consent of the official assignee or 
 execution by him of the assignment was not necessary 
 
 'In re Macfarlane (186S), 12 L. C. J. 239, and see In re McLaren 
 <£• Chalmers (1876), 1 0. A. R. 68. 
 
 8 In re McKenzie (1871), 31 U. C. Q. B. 1. 6. 
 
 •S. C. 
 
 10 Stevenson v. Broum (1863), 9 TJ. C. L. J. N. S. 110. 
 
 1 Section 10. Compare section 25. 
 
 2 In re Unitt and Prott (1893), 23 O. R. 78; Reinhardt v. Hunter 
 (1905), 6 0. W. R. 421. 
 
 3 McGregor v. Campbell (1909) , 19 Man. L. R. 38 ; 11 W. L. R. 153 ; 
 Howell, C. J., Diss. See as to where a watch is wearing apparel : In 
 re Banborn (1878), 14 C. L. J. 241: In re Robinson (1879), 15 
 C. L. J. 287. 
 
 1 Consider In re Caloott & Elvin's Contract (1898), 2 Ch. 460; 67 
 L. J. Ch. 553 ; 5 Mans. 208 ; Parlee v. Agricultural Insurance Co. (1876) , 
 3 Pugsley 476; In re Sullivan (1869), 5 TJ. C. L. J. N. S. 71. 
 
 "Harrington v. Lyon (1866), 12 Gr. 308; Becker v. Blackburn 
 (1873), 23 TJ. C. C. P. 207. Both cases were decided on demurrer. 
 
 Ik. Lk ■ 
 
172 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Sections 
 9, 10, 10A 
 
 Trustee 
 steps into 
 the shoes of 
 the 
 assignor. 
 
 Second : 
 no relation 
 back of title 
 of trustee. 
 
 Third: 
 an author- 
 ized assign- 
 ment an act 
 of 
 bankruptcy. 
 
 Whether a 
 trustee 
 under an 
 authorized 
 assignment 
 may be a 
 trustee 
 de son tort. 
 
 to give it operation as from the time of its execution 
 at least when he afterwards accepted it 6 . Under the 
 present Act no authorized trustee is bound to accept 
 an authorized assignment or to act as trustee in mat- 
 ters relating to assignments if in his opinion the realiz- 
 able value of the property of the debtor is not suffi- 
 cient to provide the necessary disbursements and a 
 reasonable remuneration for him, unless he has been 
 paid or tendered a sum sufficient to defray such dis- 
 bursements and remuneration 7 . The affidavit of exe- 
 cution for an assignment given in the Forms seems to 
 contemplate the execution of the deed by two parties 8 . 
 
 The trustee under an assignment steps into the 
 shoes of the debtor and occupies no higher position 
 than he, except as to transactions against the bank- 
 ruptcy laws and voidable in favour of creditors". 
 
 Secondly, there is no relation back of the title of 
 the trustee under an authorized assignment. The rela- 
 tion back of the title of the trustee in the case of a 
 receiving order is the result of 'sections 6(3) and 25. The 
 matter is fully discussed in the notes to section 4(10). 
 
 Thirdly, an authorized assignment is an act of 
 bankruptcy, and even if it is not avoided by the making 
 of a receiving order founded on it, the title of the 
 trustee under the receiving order will relate back to 
 the date of the presentation of the petition 10 . 
 
 It would seem probable that an authorized trustee 
 under an authorized assignment which is an act of 
 bankruptcy will.be liable to be considered a trustee de 
 son tort if, at least, he has- accepted the assignment 
 after the presentation of the petition 11 . If the trustee 
 is a trustee de son tort he is such as from the com- 
 
 * Brown v. Wright (1874), 35 TJ. C. Q. B. 378, and see Baight v. 
 Munro (1860) , 9 U. C. C. P. 462. 
 
 'Section 15(5). All other sub-sections of section 15 refer to 
 new trustees. 
 
 8 Form (10), and see notes to section 9. 
 
 "Sections 17 and 6(3) and chapter 
 
 "See notes to sections 3(a), 4(10), 25, Rule 76. 
 
 "The point was not argued in In re Croteau and Clark Co., Ltd. 
 (1920), 48 O. L. U. 359; 19 O. W. N. 199. See section 3(a) Dims 
 v. Petrie (1906), 2 K. B. 786; 75 L. J. K. B. 992; 13 Mans. 344, and 
 see notes to section 4(10) and 17(1). See as to whether the trustee is 
 bound to accept the assignment 15(3). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 173 
 
 mencement of the title of the new trustee 8 , and cannot sections 
 make any claim for personal services , or for disburse- 9 ' 10 ' 10A 
 
 ments in connection with the deed of assignment, which 
 is the act of bankruptcy 1 , and may be ordered to 
 account for any loss or damage occasioned by his act 2 . 
 
 Whether a release of debts contained in a deed of position of 
 assignment which is subsequently avoided by the bank- Jjj^g l * ors 
 ruptcy of a debtor, will prevent the creditors Who have assignment 
 
 avoided t>y 
 
 assented to the deed from proving for their debts in bankruptcy, 
 the bankruptcy, is a matter of intention in each case 3 . 
 When a deed of assignment is a nullity an assignor, 
 who is an assenting party to the deed, is not estopped 
 from presenting a bankruptcy petitions- 
 Section 10 provides that an authorized assignment Bights of 
 shall, subject to the. rights of secured creditors, vest ^editors, 
 in the trustee all the property of the debtor, with cer- 
 tain exceptions. The phrase "subject to the rights of 
 secured creditors" is 1 not conspicuously definite or 
 precise. It may be compared with the words used in 
 section 6(1), which deals with the effect of a receiving 
 order, and says: "But this section shall not, affect the 
 power of any secured creditor to realize or otherwise 
 deal with his security in the same manner as he would 
 have been entitled to realize or deal with it if this 
 section had not been passed". No doubt as cases 
 arise it will be found that the rights of secured credi- 
 tors referred to in section 10- are similar to those pre- 
 served in section 7(1) 5 . 
 
 'In re Hobbms ex parte 0. R. (1899), 6 Mans. 212, and see in 
 In re Carter and Kenderdme's Contract (1897) , 1 Oh. 776 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 
 408; 4 Mans. 34. The title of the trustee relates back to the presenta- 
 tion of the petition, sections '6, 25, Rule 76. 
 
 'In re Richards ex parte 0. R. (1884) , 32 W. IR. 1001 ; 1 Mor. 242. 
 
 1 In re Foster ex parte Rawlings <1887) , 58 L. T. 114 ; 36 W. R. 144 ; 
 4 Mor. 292, and see notes to section 4(10). As to possible repayments 
 by creditors, see Ex parte Burman in re Jubb (1897), 1 Q. B. 641; 66 
 L. J. Q. B. 452; 4 Mans. 30; Ex parte Gundry in re Sharp (1900), 83 
 L. T. 416. 
 
 2 In re McLaren & Chalmers (1876), 1 O. A. R. 68. 
 
 3 In re Stephenson ex parte O. R. (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 540; 57 
 L. J. Q. B. 451, 5 Mor. 44. As to wh'ether an authorized assignment 
 is "' avoided " by the making of a 'receiving order quwre. See notes to 
 section 3. 
 
 *In re Bagley (1911), 1 K. B. 317; 80 L. J. K. B. 168; IS Mans. 
 li and see as to a deed which might be declared void on notice : In re 
 Clement ex parte Ooas (1886) , 3 Mot. 153. 
 
 "Contrast the policy of The Insolvent Act, 1889, section 50, on 
 which see Archibald v. Haldan (1870) , 30 U. C. Q. B. 30. 
 
174 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Sections 
 9, 10, 10A 
 
 Who may 
 make an 
 assignment. 
 
 When 
 assignment 
 may be made 
 
 Assignment 
 to trustee 
 outside 
 locality of 
 debtor. 
 
 An insolvent debtor who has provable debts in 
 excess of five hundred dollars may make an authorized 
 assignment. Insolvent is defined in section 2(t). Debtor 
 includes person 6 . Person is defined in section 2{aa). 
 A corporation may make an assignment by act of the 
 directors without consulting with the shareholders 8 . 
 But one partner of a firm cannot, without authority, 
 make an assignment by deed of, the property and 
 effects of the firm to a trustee for the benefit of credi- 
 tors 9 , but if the assignment be executed by one partner 
 in the partnership name, at the request of his co- 
 partner, the assignment is effectual, even though the 
 authority to execute the deed was not by deed, at least 
 where the assignee has taken possession under the 
 deed 1 . 
 
 The statute appears to leave the way open for a 
 debtor to make an authorized assignment at any time 
 before a receiving order is made, and this in spite of 
 the fact that a petition in bankruptcy may have been 
 presented. But the court Will discourage the making 
 of authorized assignments after the petition has been 
 presented 2 . A receiving order is made when pro- 
 nounced, not when signed 3 . 
 
 Semble, following the reasoning of cases on previ- 
 ous Canadian Acts, an assignment to a trustee with 
 authority in a locality other than that of the debtor 
 will not pass the property of the debtor to that trustee*, 
 but it is possible that a creditor who assents may be 
 
 s 2(o). 
 
 'Whiting v. Bovey (1887) 14 S. C. R. 515, see section 85. 
 
 'Stevenson v. Brown (1863), 9 U. C. L. J. N. S. 110; Cameron 
 v. Stevenson (1862), 12 U. C. 0. P. 389; see section 85 and Lindley, 
 Partnership, 8th edition, 1912, p. 729. 
 
 ' Nelles v. Maltby (1885), 5 O. R. 263; Nolan v. Donnelly (1884), 
 4 O. R 440. 
 
 2 Be Croteau and Clark Co., Ltd. (1920), 48 0. L. R. 359; 19 
 O. W. N. 199. See as to whether a trustee under an authorized 
 assignment may be a t'-ustee de son tort, supra, and notes to section 3(a). 
 
 3 In re Manning (1885), 30 Oh. D. 480; 55 L. J. Oh. 613; Blount v. 
 Wliitely (1899), 79 L T 635: 6- Mans. 48. 
 
 1 Kingston v. Campoell (1866), 2 U. C. L. J. N. S. 299; White v. 
 CutUertson (1867). 17 U. C. C. P. 377; MoWhirter v. Learmouth 
 (1868), 18 U. C. C. P. 136; contra, Brown v. Douglas (1868), 13 
 L. C. J. 29; and see Gravel v. Stewart (1873), 17. L. C. J. 326, and 
 Newton v. Ontario Bank (1867). 13 Gr. 652. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 175 
 
 precluded from disputing the validity of the assign- Sections 
 ment 5 . The locality of the debtor is defined in sec- ' ' 
 tion 2(aj). 
 
 Were it not for the words in this section avoiding of v ^ s ^ e 
 assignments- other than authorized assignments they ™^ other 
 would be valid and effectual at common law unless authorized 
 avoided as acts of bankruptcy within six months after as ' "" ' 
 execution and delivery 6 . Normally a deed of assign- 
 ment to a trustee for the benefit of creditors is a revoc- 
 able mandate unless some other party has an interest 
 in it T , or unless its terms are communicated to a credi- 
 tor who expressly or impliedly assents to it 8 , when 
 a binding irrevocable trust is created . The execu- 
 tion of such a deed even before the deed becomes irre- 
 vocable is probably an act of bankruptcy 1 , particularly 
 if it was thereby intended to defeat or delay creditors 2 . 
 Section 15(5) provides that no authorized trustee is 
 bound to accept an authorized assignment or to act as 
 trustee in matters relating to assignments or receiving 
 orders or to compositions, if in his opinion the realiz- 
 
 5 McWhirter v. Learmouth, supra, and see Allan v. Garratt & 'Wil- 
 liamson (1870), 30 U. C. Q. B. 165. 
 
 " Johnson v. Osenton (1869) , L. R. 4 Ex. 107, 114, 115 ; Wilson v. 
 Cramp (1865), 11 Gr. 444, and see section 3(a) and 4(3) (6) ; In re 
 Halstead ex parte Richardson (1917), 1 K. B. 695 ; 86 L. J. K. B. 621 ; 
 (1917), H. B.R. 60. 
 
 1 Ed> parte Wreyford in re Ashby (1892), 1 Q. B. 872; 9 Mor. 77; 
 Rex v. Eumphris (1904), 2 K. B. 89; 73 L. J. K. B. 464; 11 Mans. 
 139. 
 
 'Per Strong, J. (dis.) in McAllister v. Forsyth, 12 S. C. R. 1, 20; 
 Spooner v. Jones (1871), 3 Oh. Ch. 481. 
 
 'Ex parte O. R. in re Bobbins (1899) 6 Mans. 212; Johnson v. 
 Osenton (1870), L. R. 4 Ex. 107. See also notes to section 11(1) 
 
 1 Botcherby v. Lancaster (1834), 1 A. & E. 77. 
 
 2 Brittain v. Brown (1871), 24 L. T. 504; as to a deed delivered 
 in escrow see Bowker v. Burdekin (1843), 11 M. & W. 128; 12 L. J. 
 Ex. 329 ; Pulling v. Tucker (1821) , 4 B. & Aid. 382 ; Botcheroy V. Lan- 
 caster, supra; Johnson v. Osenton (1869), L. R. 4 Ex. 107; and see 
 further on whether such deeds are acts of bankruptcy, notes to section 
 3(a). The question comes up whether the execution of an assignment 
 which is null and void can be tendered in evidence to prove the act 
 of bankruptcy alleged. A deed of assignment may be given in evi- 
 dence in England as proof of an act of bankruptcy, though it is not 
 stamped, and so would not be receivable in evidence in an action to 
 enforce the deed: Ponsford v. Walton (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 167; 37 
 L. J. 0. P. 113; Ex parte and in re Wensley (1862), 1 DeG. J. & S. 
 273; 32 L. J. Bank 23; Ex parte Squire in re G-ouldwell (1868), L. R. 
 4 Ch. 47 ; 38 L. J. Bank 13 ; Ex parte Eeapy in re Hollingshead (1889) , 
 58 L. J. Q. B: 297 ; 6 Mor. 66, and see further notes to section 3 (a) . 
 
176 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Sections 
 9, 10, 10A 
 
 As to 
 avoiding 
 
 able value of the property of the debtor is not sufficient 
 to provide for the necessary disbursements and a rea- 
 sonable remuneration for the trustee, unless and until 
 the trustee has been paid or tendered a sum sufficient 
 to defray such disbursements and remuneration 3 . In 
 order that an assignment may be an act of bankruptcy 
 under section 3(a) it must be "an assignment of his 
 property to a trustee or trustees' for the benefit of the 
 debtor's creditors generally" 4 . An assignment of 
 part only of the debtor's property is not within sec- 
 tion 3(a) nor is an assignment of all his property for 
 the benefit of certain creditors only 5 . The words ' ' and 
 every assignment of his property other than an author- 
 ized assignment made by an insolvent debtor for the 
 general benefit of his creditors shall be null and void" 
 are open to similar interpretation, so that it may be 
 that assignments of part only of an insolvent debtor's 
 property are not avoided by this section 7 . 
 
 It was pointed out by the Judicial Committee in 
 
 under 
 
 Provincial 
 
 Acts. 
 
 assignments the case of Attorney-General (Ontario) v. Attorney- 
 General (Canada)*, that an assignment for the general 
 benefit of creditors has its force and effect at common 
 law quite independently of any system of bankruptcy 
 or insolvency or any legislation relating thereto. 
 "Whether the provisions of section 9 avoiding assign- 
 ments other than authorized assignments made by 
 insolvent debtors is ultimately upheld as within the 
 legislative competence of the Dominion would appear 
 to depend on first whether the test of what is ancillary 
 or necessarily incidental legislation within the com- 
 petence of the Dominion legislature is that which is 
 "reasonably necessary" or that which is "absolutely 
 necessary" 9 , and secondly whether this provision is 
 
 3 And see notes to section 10. 
 
 4 Section 3(a). 
 "See notes to section 3(a). Though such an assignment may be 
 
 within Provincial Acts in R. S. O. 1914, c. 134, s. 9. 
 
 ' See as 'to other assignments under Provincial Acts, R. S. 0. 1914. 
 c. 134, s. 9 ; R. S. M. 1913, c. 12, s. 9. 
 
 8 (1894), A. C. 189; 63, L. J. P. C. 59. 
 
 See per Anglin (dis.) Montreal St. Railway v. Montreal (1910), 43 
 S. C. R. 197, 241, 246. Their Lordships in the Privy Council con- 
 tented themselves with saying in that case " it must be shown that it is 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 177 
 
 held to 'be ancillary legislation within the definition sections 
 used. It is, however, clear that so far as proceedings 9 ' 10, 10A 
 under The Bankruptcy Act are concerned, proceedings 
 under an unauthorized assignment have no validity, 
 and cannot be validated 10 ; and it has been held that a 
 trustee under an assignment declared void by this 
 section has no status to impeach a chattel mortgage as 
 fraudulent or void 11 . 
 
 The procedure to have a deed declared void under 
 this section is by summary application under Eule 
 120. 
 
 An authorized assignment will be valid and effect- Form of 
 ual if in the words of Form 18 "or in words to the J^SSS*. 
 like effect". No general rule can be laid down as to 
 what are "words to the like effect". It has been held 
 in Manitoba under The Manitoba Assignment Act that 
 an assignment assigning all the real estate of the 
 debtor "according to his estate and interest therein" 
 was not an assignment of "all his real estate credits 
 and effects which may be seized or sold under execu- 
 tion" or "words to the like effect", as it passed only 
 the limited estate mentioned 1 . 
 
 An assignment by a debtor under The Ontario Effect of 
 Assignments and Preferences Act has been held not to ^Insurance 
 avoid a policy of insurance containing a condition to policy, 
 the effect that the policy is to become void if the pro- 
 perty insured is assigned without written permission 
 endorsed thereon by an agent of the company 2 . 
 
 An assignment for the benefit of creditors is not a Assignment 
 "selling to any other person" within the terms of an; ^,, 
 
 necessarily incidental to the exercise of control over the traffic of a 
 federal railway . . . that it should have power to exercise control 
 over the " through traffic" : Montreal v. Montreal St. Railway, 1912, A. 
 C. 333, 344. See generally on Ancillary Legislation, Lefroy. Canadian 
 Federal System, Ch. 17 ; Ancillary Legislation, Clement, Canadian Con- 
 stitution, 3rd edition, pp. 497-505. . 
 
 10 In re White (1920), 19 O. W. N. 26 (Orde, J.) ; and see Bentley's 
 Trustee v. Hill (1921), 1 C. B. R. 477 ; 20 0. W..N. 170 (Middleton, 
 J.) ; Hamilton v. Vipond (1921), 20 0. W. N. 214 (Logie, J.). 
 
 11 Hamilton v. Vipond (1921), 20 O. W. N. 214 (Logie, J.). It 
 does not appear from the report of this case whether the transaction was 
 attacked as contrary to Dominion or Provincial Law. 
 
 1 Canadian Port Huron Co. v. Burnett (1907). 5 W. L. R. 270. 
 'Wade v. Rochester German Fire Insce. Co. (1911), 23 O. L. R. 
 635. 
 
 B.o.— 12 
 
178 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 11 agreement to pay $500 in lieu of firewood should the 
 property be sold 3 . 
 
 If there are no assets at the time of the assignment 
 and none at the time of the application for discharge 
 this may be evidence that the assignment is made in 
 fraud of the Act and to defeat creditors 4 . 
 
 Assignment 
 for 
 
 fraudulent 
 purpose. 
 
 Receiving 
 orders and 
 assignments 
 to take 
 precedence 
 of attach- 
 ments, 
 executions, 
 etc. 
 
 Purchaser 
 in good faith 
 at sale 
 protected. 
 
 General Provisions Relating to Receiving Orders 
 and Assignments. 
 
 11 (1) Every receiving order and every auth- 
 orized assignment made in pursuance of 
 this Act shall take precedence over, — 
 (a) all, attachments of debts by way of gar- 
 nishment, unless the debt involved has' 
 been actually paid over to the garnishing 
 creditor or his agent ; and 
 (o) all other attachments, executions or 
 other process against property, except 
 such thereof as have been completely exe- 
 cuted by payment to the execution or other 
 creditor; and except also the rights of a 
 secured creditor under section six of this 
 Act; 
 but shall be subject to a lien for one only bi* 
 of costs, including sheriff's fees, which shall 
 be payable to the garnishing, attaching or 
 execution creditor who has first attached by 
 way of garnishment or lodged with the 
 sheriff an attachment, execution or other 
 process against property. 
 (2) An execution levied by seizure and sale on 
 and of the goods of a debtor is not invalid by 
 reason only of its being an act of bank- 
 ruptcy, and a person who purchases the 
 goods in good faith under a sale by the 
 sheriff shall, in all cases, acquire a good title 
 to them against the authorized trustee. 
 
 "Ryan v. Malone (1908), 11 O. W. R. 575. 
 
 * Thomas v. Hall (1874), 6 U. C. P. R. 172; Parke v. Day (1875), 
 24 U. C. O. P. 619 ; Hood v. Dodds (1873), 19 Gr. 639, 644. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY. ACT. 179 
 
 (3) If an authorized assignment or a receiving section 11 
 order has been made, the sheriff or other sheriff to 
 officer of any court having seized property d r p e e r r ty t 
 of the debtor under execution or attachment debtor to 
 
 trustee 
 
 or any other process, shall, upon receiving a 
 copy of the assignment certified by the trus- 
 tee named therein or of the receiving order 
 certified by the registrar or other clerical 
 officer of the court which made it, forthwith 
 deliver to the trustee all the property of the 
 execution debtor in his hands, upon payment 
 by the trustee of his fees and charges and 
 the costs of the execution creditor who has 
 a lien as in this section provided. If the 
 sheriff has sold the debtor's estate or any 
 part thereof, he shall deliver to the trustee 
 the moneys so realized by him less his fees 
 and the said costs. 
 
 (4) No receiving order or authorized assign- Notice of 
 ment or other document made or executed tobf 1 ™ 6111 
 under authority of this Act shall be within P ublished - 
 the operation of any legislative enactment 
 
 now or at any time in force in any province 
 of Canada relating to deeds, mortgages, 
 judgments, bills of sale, chattel mortgages, 
 property or registration of documents 
 affecting title to or liens or charges upon 
 property real or personal, immovable or 
 movable ; but a notice in the prescribed form 
 of such receiving order or assignment and 
 of the first meeting of creditors required to 
 be called pursuant to this Act shall, as soon 
 as possible after the making or executing of 
 such receiving order or assignment, be 
 gazetted, and not less than six days prior to 
 said meeting be published in a local news- 
 paper. 
 
 (5) The registrars of the courts of bankruptcy, ctee?*e to be 
 the registrars of all land title and land regis- {^g^ars, 
 tration offices and the recorders or clerks of recorders 
 all courts and offices wherein any documents and notices 
 
 indexed. 
 
180 
 Section 11 
 
 Fees. 
 
 Gazette 
 to be 
 supplied. 
 
 Assignment 
 to be 
 
 registered 
 in proper 
 registry. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 of title relating to property are, according 
 to the provisions of this Act or of the law of 
 a province, registered, recorded or filed, 
 shall keep on file for public reference a copy 
 of each issue of the Canada Gazette which 
 contains any notice or notices, of, incident to 
 or resulting from receiving orders or auth- 
 orized assignments referring to bankrupts 
 • or assignors who resided or carried on busi- 
 ness in the province wherein the said courts 
 or offices are situated; and they shall also 
 keep an index book wherein they shall enter 
 alphabetically the name of each bankrupt 
 and authorized assignor who resided or car- 
 ried on business in such province prior to 
 the date of the receiving order or assign- 
 ment and in respect of whose estate a notice 
 may at any time hereafter appear in the said 
 Canada Gazette. 
 
 (6) A fee not exceeding, twenty-five cents for 
 each search and fifty cents for each certifi- 
 cate may be charged by such registrar, re- 
 corder or clerk. 
 
 (7) The King's Printer, upon request of any 
 person who is by this Act required to keep 
 on file for public reference a copy of the 
 Canada Gazette, shall regularly supply to 
 such person, gratis, two copies of every issue 
 of such Gazette. 
 
 (8) Every receiving order and every author- 
 ized assignment (or a true copy certified as 
 to such order by the registrar or other cleri- 
 cal officer of. the court which has made it, 
 and as to such assignment certified by the 
 trustee therein named) shall be registered 
 or filed by or on behalf of the trustee in the 
 proper office in every district, county or 
 territory in which the whole or any part of 
 any real or immovable property which the 
 bankrupt or assignor owns or in which he 
 has any interest or estate is situate. 
 
TSE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 181 
 
 (9) The proper office in this section referred to section 11 
 shall be the land titles office, land registra- propel 
 tion office, registry office or other ■ office ^eistcy. 
 wherein, according to the law of the pro- 
 vince, deeds or other documents of title to 
 
 real or immovable property may or ought to 
 be deposited, registered or filed. 
 
 (10) From and after such registration or filing precedence 
 or tender thereof within the proper office to aLlgtme^t. 
 the registrar or other proper officer, such 
 
 order or assignment shall have precedence 
 of all certificates of judgment, judgments 
 operating as hypothecs, executions and at- 
 tachments against land (except such thereof 
 as have been completely executed by pay- 
 ment) within such office or within the dis- 
 trict, county or territory which is served by 
 such office, but subject to a lien for the costs 
 of registration and sheriff's fees, of such 
 judgment, execution, or attaching creditors 
 as have registered or filed within such proper 
 office their judgments, executions or attach- 
 ments. 
 
 (11) Every registrar or other officer for the Affidavit 
 time being in charge of such proper office to lustration 
 whom any trustee shall tender or cause to 
 
 be tendered for registration or filing any 
 sueh receiving order or authorized assign- 
 ment shall register or file the same accord- 
 ing to the ordinary procedure for register- 
 ing or filing within such office documents 
 ' which evidence liens or charges against real 
 or immovable property (and subject to pay- 
 ment of the like fees) if at the time of the 
 tender of such document for such purpose 
 there be tendered annexed thereto as part 
 thereof an affidavit substantially in the fol- 
 lowing form: — 
 "In the matter of The Bankruptcy Act." 
 "Canada 
 "Province of 
 'I of in the province 
 
 it- 
 
182 
 Section 11 
 
 Affidavit 
 upon 
 
 registration 
 where title 
 to real 
 
 estate or lien 
 affected. 
 
 Attestation. 
 
 Penalty for 
 refusing 
 to register. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 "of , make oath and say — 
 
 "That the hereunto annexed document is 
 "tendered for registration (or filing) under 
 "the authority and direction of 
 "of in the Province 
 
 "of a duly appointed 
 
 "trustee under The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 ' ' Sworn before me at 
 
 "in the province of 
 
 "this day of 19.." 
 
 In cases where the title to real, or immovable, 
 property, or any lien or charge upon or ' 
 against that class of property, is affected by 
 any receiving order, or authorized assign- 
 ment, there shall be added to such affidavit • 
 the following words, with the incidentally 
 necessary description and information— 
 'The annexed document affects the title to 
 (or a lien or liens or a charge or charges 
 upon or against, as the case may be) the fol- 
 lowing described (real or immovable) pro- 
 perty: (add such reasonable description of 
 each parcel affected, stating how it is 
 affected, as may enable the registrar or other 
 officer for the time being in charge of the 
 proper office to identify the affected pro- 
 perty and to discover how it is affected) '. 
 
 (12) Such affidavit may be sworn before such 
 registrar or other officer, or before a notary 
 public or a commissioner authorized to ad- 
 minister oaths for use in any of the courts 
 of the province.. 
 
 (13) Any such registrar or other officer, who 
 upon tender of any such receiving order or 
 assignment or a copy thereof, certified as 
 aforesaid, with the proper fees, and with 
 the request that such document be registered 
 or filed as aforesaid, shall refuse or omit to 
 forthwith register or file the same in manner 
 hereinbefore indicated or who shall omit or 
 refuse to comply with the provisions of sub- 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 183 
 
 section five of this section in so far as they section n 
 are applicable to him, shall be guilty of an 
 indictable offence punishable upon indict- 
 ment or summary conviction by a fine not 
 exceeding one thousand dollars or by im- 
 prisonment for a term not exceeding one 
 year or to both such fine and such imprison- 
 ment. 
 
 (14) If the receiving order or authorized as- Application 
 signment is not registered, or filed, or if relation, 
 notice of said receiving order or assignment 
 
 is not published within the time and in the 
 manner prescribed by this section, an appli- 
 cation may be made by any creditor or by 
 the debtor to compel the registration or 
 filing of the receiving order or assignment, 
 or publication of such notice, and the judge 
 shall make his order in that behalf and with 
 or without costs, or upon the payment of 
 costs by such person as he may, in his dis- 
 cretion, direct to pay the same; and such 
 judge may, in his discretion, impose a pen- 
 alty on the trustee for any omission, neglect 
 or refusal to so register, file, or publish as 
 aforesaid, in an amount not exceeding the 
 sum of five hundred dollars, and such pen- 
 alty when imposed shall forthwith be paid 
 by the trustee personally into and for the 
 benefit of the estate of the debtor. 
 
 (15) Saving and preserving the rights of inno- Assignment 
 cent purchasers for value, neither the omis- Mandated 
 sion to publish or register as aforesaid, nor J>y omission 
 
 to rfiffistGF 
 
 any irregularity in the publication or regis- 
 tration, shall invalidate the assignment or 
 affect or prejudice the receiving order. 
 
 (16) The provisions of paragraphs one and ten Existing 
 
 of this section shall not apply to any judg- not ™!artia. n 
 ment or certificate of judgment registered and New 
 against real or immovable property in either 
 of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New 
 Brunswick prior to the coming into force 
 
184 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 11 
 
 Law of 
 province to 
 apply in 
 favour of 
 purchaser 
 for value 
 without 
 notice. 
 
 To sec. 11(2) 
 
 To sec. 11(3) 
 To sec. 11(4) 
 
 To sec. 11(5) 
 To sec. 11(8) 
 
 To sec. 11(10) 
 
 To sec. 11(14) 
 To sec. 11 (15) 
 
 of this Act, which became, under the laws of 
 the province wherein it was registered, a 
 charge, lien or hypothec upon such real or 
 immovable property. 
 (17) The law of the province in which real, or 
 immovable, property is situate as to regis- 
 tration and the effect of non-registration of 
 documents affecting title to or liens upon 
 real, or immovable, property, shall, notwith- 
 standing anything in this Act, apply in 
 favour of purchasers for value without no- 
 tice, to any lot of real, or immovable, pro- 
 perty which has not been identified in 
 manner required by subsection eleven of this 
 section within three months after the making 
 of the receiving order or authorized assign- 
 ment whereunder any title to or interest in 
 such lot has vested in an authorized trustee, 
 and in cases in which the foregoing provi- 
 sion shall come into operation the trustee's 
 title to or interest in such lot shall be and be 
 deemed divested to the extent necessary to 
 permit such provision to so come into opera- 
 tion. 
 
 'Cross References Act: To Section 11(1) : Staying of remedies 
 against the property of the debtor, 6(1), 7; precedence of R. 0. and 
 A. A. in case of land, 11(10) (16) ; costs of execution creditor 11(10), 
 51(1) ; duty of sheriff to deliver up property, 11(3). 
 
 Execution levied 1 by seizure and sale, an act of bankruptcy, 3(e) ; 
 stay of execution on making of R. O., 7(2) ; precedence of executions 
 ousted 11(1) (10) ; sheriff defined, 2(hh). 
 
 Lien of execution creditor 11(1). 
 
 Receiving order made, 4(5) ; authorized assignment, 9; R. 0. and 
 A. A. to be registered, 11(8) (9) ; prescribed means prescribed by Gen- 
 eral Rules, 2(cc) ; gazetted defined, 2(g). 
 
 Penalty for non-compliance 11(13). 
 
 Effect of registration, 11(10); omission to register, 11(15): pro- 
 vincial acts relating to registration, 11(4). 
 
 Precedence of R. O. and A. A., 11(1) ; registration of R. 0. and 
 A. A., 11(8) ; in provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, 11(16) ; 
 costs of execution creditor, 11(1), 51(1). 
 
 Registration of P. O. and A. A., 11(8) (9) ; publication of notice 
 of R. O. and A. A., 11(4) ; judge defined, 2(«), 63(2), 64(3). 
 
 Publication, 11(4); registration, 11 (8) (9) ; amendment of mis- 
 takes, 12. 
 
 Cross References Rules: To section 11(6) (13) ; fees generally, 
 62; to section 11(14), judge defined, 2(1). 
 
2'fTE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 185 
 
 Cross References Forms: Notice of R. 0. or A. A. and of first Section 11 
 meeting of creditors, 20. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Aot. 1914, s. 40(l)-(2) ; 1890, To sec. 11(1) 
 s. 11 ; 1883, s. 45. Canadian Act, 1875, s. 19. Winding-Up Act, 1906, 
 ss. 23, 84. Provincial Assignments Acts: R. S. O. 1914, c. 134, s. 14; 
 R. S. M. 1913, c. 12, s. 8, as amended 1915, c. 1 ; N. S. 1908, c. 21, s. 1 ; 
 R. S. B. C. 1911, c. 13, s. 14; R. S. S. 1909, c. 142, s. 9. 
 
 English Act, 1914, s. 40(3). To sec. 11(2) 
 
 English Act, 1914, s. 41(1) (2). Canadian Act, 1875, s. 97. Pro- To sec 11(3) 
 vincial Assignments Acts: R. S. M. 1913, c. 12, s. 9 ; R. S. S. 1909, c. 
 142, s. 10. 
 
 English Act, 1914, s. 11, Schedule 1(1) (2) ; s. 53(4). Canadian To sec 11(4) 
 Act, 1875, s. 21. Provincial Assignments Acts : R. S. 0. 1914, c. 134, 
 ss. 17, 18 ; R. S. M. 1913, c. 12, s. 11 ; R. S. N. S. 1900, c. 145, s. 12 ; 
 R. S. B. C. 1911, c. 13, s. 7 ; R. S. S. 1909, c. 142, s. 12 ; Alberta 1907, 
 c. 6, s 11. 
 
 Provincial Assignments Acts : R. S. M. 1913, c. 12, s. 12 ; R. S. N. S. To sec. 11(8) 
 1900, c. 145, s. 13; R. S. B. C. 1911, c. 13, s. 8; 1914, c. 3, ss. 2, 3; 
 R S. S. 1909, c. 142, s. 13 ; Alberta 1907, c. 6, s. 12. 
 
 Provincial Assignments Acts: R. S." M. 1912, c. 12, s. 14 ; R. S. B. C. To sec 11(14) 
 1911, c. 13, s. 12 ; R. S. S. 1909, c. 142, s. 15 ; Alberta 1907, c. 6, s. 14. 
 
 Provincial Assignments Acts: R. S. O. 1914, c. 134, ss. 13(14), 16, To see 11(15) 
 19, 20; R. S. M. 1913, c. 12, s. 15; R. S. B. C. 1911, c. 13, s. 13 ; 
 R. S. S. 1909, c. 142, s. 16; Alberta 1907, c. 6, =. 15. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Receiving orders given precedence over attachments by section 
 
 11(1): 
 Creditor may speed completion of process. 
 Attachments. 
 Debts garnished must be actually paid over to the creditor or his 1 
 
 agent. 
 Attachments, executions and other process must be completely exe- 
 cuted by payment. 
 The lien of the execution creditor — 
 Sheriff. 
 
 Secured creditor. 
 Sec. 11(2). 
 
 Sec. 11(3). Sheriff to deliver property on payment of fees and 
 costs — 
 Fees. 
 
 Duty of sheriff to seize and sell. 
 Property of the debtor. 
 Payments direct to creditors. 
 Sec. 11 (4). Constitutionality of the section. 
 Original of the section. 
 What is meant by " documents " 
 Meaning of the phrase " shall be within the operation of any 
 
 legislative enactment" 
 " Property ". 
 " Or registration of documents affecting title to or liens or 
 
 charges upon property " 
 Notice to be given. 
 
 Notice to be given " as soon as possible " 
 Title under the Act — 
 (1) Title as between the debtor and trustee : 
 
 (a) Transactions affected by relation back of title of 
 trustee. 
 
186 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 11 (&) Transactions subsequent to the actual date of the R. 0. 
 
 — or A. A. 
 
 (2) Title as between successive trustees and those who deal 
 with them. 
 Sec. 11(5). Constitutionality of the section. 
 Defect in the section. 
 
 Sec. 11(8) (9). Registration of R. O. and A. A. in proper registry — 
 No provision for registration of A. A. with registrar of court. 
 Time when registration must be made under section 11(8). 
 Reason for registration undeT American Acts. 
 English Practice. 
 N Scheme of present Act. 
 Sec. 11(13) (14). Effect given to registration by section 11(10) (11). 
 Meaning of see. 11(15). 
 
 Meaning of "innocent purchasers for valuei''. 
 Sec. 11(16). 
 
 Section 11(1) is given- in the form in which it was 
 enacted by The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1920, 
 as amended by The Bankruptcy Act Amendment 
 Act, 1921 5 . It is difficult to see why this amendment, 
 if it was necessary, did not mention the rights of 
 secured' creditors which have been preserved under 
 section 10. Section 11(16) was first enacted by section 
 7 of The Bankruptcy Act, 1920. Section 11(17) was 
 first enacted by section 55 of The Bankruptcy Act 
 Amendment Act, 1921. 
 
 Although section 11(1) purports to give receiving 
 orders and authorized assignments precedence over 
 certain process not completely executed by payment 
 by sec. ii(i) £ ^ e execution or other creditor, the Act is not clear 
 as to the points of time at which authorized assign- 
 ments and receiving orders take precedence over 
 them ; whether from the moment of execution, 6 or from 
 
 Receiving 
 orders given 
 precedence 
 over attach- 
 ments, etc, 
 
 Receiving 
 orders and 
 assignments 
 to take 
 precedence 
 of attach- 
 ments, 
 executions, 
 etc. 
 
 5 The previous section read — ■ 
 
 11(1) Every receiving order and every authorized assignment made 
 in pursuance of this Act shall take precedence over : 
 
 (a) All attachments of debts by way of garnishment, unless the 
 debt involved has been actually paid over to the garnishing 
 creditor or his agent ; and 
 (6) all other attachments, executions or other process against pro- 
 perty, except such thereof as have 'been completely executed 
 by payment to the execution or other creditor; 
 but shall be subject to a lien for one only bill of costs, including 
 sheriff's fees, which shall be payable to the garnishing, attaching, or 
 execution creditor who has first attached by way of garnishment or 
 lodged with the sheriff an attachment, execution or other process 
 against property : Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to any 
 execution or other process issued against real or immovable property 
 under or by virtue of a judgment registered prior to the coming into 
 operation of this Act, which judgment, as the result of such registration, 
 became, under the laws of the province wherein it was entered, a charge, 
 lien or hypothec upon or of such real or immovable property. 
 
 "The rule with respect to assignments which are not given a statu- 
 tory validity on execution is that the deed is revocable until. the fact 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 187 
 
 the earliest moment of the day on which the receiving Section 11 
 order is made 7 , or from the time of the commencement 
 of the title of the trustee under the doctrine of relation 
 back 8 . In the case of certificates of judgment, judg- 
 ments operating as hypothecs, executions and attach- 
 ments against land, the receiving order does not 
 appear to obtain precedence until registration in the 
 proper office 9 . 
 
 There is nothing in this section as there is in the creditor 
 corresponding English section 10 , to prevent a creditor ™mpietion 
 who has notice of an available act of bankruptcy or of of process, 
 the presentation of a petition from speeding the com- 
 pletion of his process, prior at least to the making of 
 the receiving order 11 ; for it seems that at any time 
 prior to the making of the receiving order the creditor 
 may direct the sheriff to seize and sell under the 
 execution 1 . 
 
 A garnishee, who under an order nisi (not an order Attachments, 
 absolute), pays a judgment creditor a debt due the 
 debtor may have to pay again to the trustee if the title 
 of the trustee relates back to cover the transaction 2 . 
 
 of its execution has been communicated to a creditor : Garrard v. Lauder- 
 dale (1831), 2 Russ. & M. 451 ; Siggers v. Evans (1855) , 24 L. J. Q. B. 
 355; Ellis & Co. v. Cross (1915), 1 H. B. R. 239; and see notes to 
 section 9. 
 
 'R. v. Edwards (1854), 9 Ex. 62.S ; Wright v. Mills (1859), 28 
 L. J. Ex. 223, and see as 1 to non-judicial acts : Ex parte and in re 
 Richardson (1838), 3 Dea. 496. and see generally Converse v. Michie 
 (1865), 16 TJ. C. C. P. 167; distinguished on the wording of section 
 3(22) of 27, 28 Vic. c. 17-; in Whyte v. Treadwell (1867), 17 U. C. C. 
 P. 488, and of. per Wright J., in In re and ex parte Pollard (1903), 2 
 K. B. 41 ; 72 L. X K. B. 509 ; 10 Mans. 152. 
 
 "See sections 25,-6(3), 4(10): Fitches v. Hamilton Tribune Co., 
 (1884). 10 O. R. 409. 
 
 "Section 11(10), and see in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick 
 11(16). As to the case of a sale by the debtor of part of his lands after 
 a fi. fa. had been delivered to the sheriff, and before an assignment, 
 see Davidson v. Perry (1873) , 23 U. C. C. P. 346. 
 
 "Section 40. 
 
 "See section 7(2). 
 
 1 See Gillard v. MUUgan (1897) , 28 O. R. 645 ; Elliott v. Hamilton 
 (1902), 4 O. L. R. 585; Woolford v. Levy (1892), 1 Q. B. 772; 61 h. J. 
 Q. B. 546; Thordarson v. Jones (1908), 18 M. L. R. 223; 9 W. L. R. 
 233 ; semble, before the making of the receiving order it is the duty of 
 the sheriff to sell. See per Fry and Lopes, L.JJ., in Woolford's Trus- 
 tees v. Levy, supra, at 781, 782. On the making of the receiving order 
 section 7(2) comes into force, and see in the case of an authorized 
 assignment: section 13a. 
 
 'In re Webster -ex parte O. R. (1907), 1 K. B. 623; 76 L. J. K. B. 
 380; 14 Mans. 20; and see Wood v. Dunn (1866), L. R. 2 Q. B. 7.3; 
 36 L. J. Q. B. 27. 
 
188 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section ii The provision in section 11(1) (a), that a garnished 
 Debts ~~ debt must be paid to the creditor or his agent, if the 
 must be^ priority of the receiving order is to be avoided, is to be 
 actually paid contrasted with the conditions laid down in 11(1) (&), 
 creditor or. where agent is not mentioned. Under the English Act 
 
 his agent. there mnst fee << r6(?e ip t f fl^ debt" fey the cre ditor. 
 
 It has been held under that statute that payment into 
 court to abide further order does not constitute a 
 "receipt of the debt" by which the attachment is com- 
 pleted 3 , nor semble, is an enforceable contract to pay 
 the equivalent of a receipt 4 . 
 Attachments, The phrase "completely executed by payment to 
 and C otner S the execution or other creditor", used in section 11 
 beafnfieteV W^), should be compared with the somewhat simi- 
 executedby lar phrase in 11(10). There are other verbal differ- 
 ! '' '"' ences between 11(1) and 11(10), which make interpre- 
 tation difficult. Section 11(1) says nothing of process 
 which cannot be executed by payment. The appoint- 
 ment of a receiver in respect of equitable interests in 
 land is in England equivalent to execution under a 
 writ of elegit in respect of legal interests, and is an 
 actual delivery in execution 5 . An order nisi charging 
 shares under the English Act, 1 & 2 Vic. c. 110, s. 14, is 
 not "an execution against the goods of a debtor", 
 within the English section, 46 & 47 Vic. c. 52, s. 45". 
 
 As to the payment of money by the debtor to the 
 sheriff after seizure under an arrangement made 
 between the creditor and the debtor direct, see Newton 
 
 3 Butler v. Wearing (1885) , 17 Q. B. D. 182 ; 3 Mor. 5, but money 
 paid into court to abide the result of 'an action may belong to the 
 plaintiff so as to make him a secured creditor. See Ex parte Navalch-and 
 in re Gordon (1897) , 2 Q. B. 516 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 768 ; 4 Mans. 141 ; 
 In re and ex parte Pollard (1903), 2 K. B. 41; 72 L. J. K. B. 509; 
 10 'Mans. 152; and see cases in notes to section 2(gg). See ajso the 
 remarks in Gillard v. Milligan (1897), 28> O. E. 645, on the question 
 whether an execution creditor who took no active steps to enforce his 
 execution was a seeuTed creditor under The Ontario Assignments Act. 
 
 l In re Trehewrne ex parte O. R. (1890), 60 ~CT3. Q. B. 50; 7 Mor. 
 261. Payment into Court under a garnishee order is not payment to the 
 garnishing creditor: In re Western Canada Flour Mills (1921), 1 O. B. 
 R. 390. 
 
 5 Ex parte Evans in re Watklns (1880), 13 Ch. D. 252; 49 L. J. 
 Bank. 7 ; compare on appointment of receivers : Ex parte Taylor a 
 Sons (1893), 1 Q. B. 648; 62 L. J. Q. B. 392; 10 Mor. 52. . 
 
 Ex parte Plowden in re Hutchinson (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 515; 55 
 L. J. Q. B. 582; 3 Mor. 19. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 189 
 
 v. Foley 1 . It may be that where money is paid to the Section 11 
 sheriff to avoid a sale 8 the transaction is not covered — 
 by this section of the Act 9 . 
 
 The Supreme Court of Canada decided on the words The Hen 
 of the Ontario enactment, which read "subject to the execution 
 hen 10 if any of an execution creditor for his costs creditor - 
 where there is but one execution in the sheriff 's hands ' ', 
 that the execution creditor was entitled to all the costs 
 of his action, and not merely the costs of the execu- 
 tion 1 . 
 
 JBy section 2(hh), sheriff includes bailiff 2 . sheriff. 
 
 An execution or other creditor who becomes a secured 
 secured creditor 3 will have a higher right than that creditor - 
 conferred by this section.. Thus an execution creditor 
 who in foreclosure proceedings redeems and obtains 
 an assignment of the mortgage becomes, after the tak- 
 ing of the new account, and the confirmation of the 
 Master's report, a mortgagee of the lands*. 
 
 Under the seetion of the Ontario Act correspond- 
 ing to 11(1), it was held that an assignment does not 
 
 ' (1911), 20 M. L. R. 519; 17 W. L. R. 105, and see under the 
 English Act: In re Ghdding ex parte Trustee (1914), 2 K. B. 70; 83 
 L. J. K. B. 1222 ; 21 Mans. 137 ; In re Pollock ex parte Wilson (1902) , 
 87 L. T. 238; In re Jenkins ex parte Trustee (1904), 90 L. T. 65; In 
 re Evans ex parte Salaman (1916), 2 H. B. R. 111. 
 
 'Stock v. Holland (1874), L. R. 9 Ex. 147; 43 L. J. Ex. 113; SI 
 L. T. 121; 21 W. R. 661; Ex parte Brooke in re Hassatt (1874), L. R. 
 9 Ch. 301; 43 L. J. Bank. 49; Bower v. Sett (1895), 2 Q. B. 51, 337; 
 64 L. J. Q. B. 483, 772 : In re Evans ex parte Salaman ' (1916) , H. B. R. 
 111. 
 
 9 Such a payment may be a fraudulent preference, see section 31. As 
 to whether a payment to the creditor by the execution debtor direct will 
 be recoverable by the trustee where the payment is not accepted in full 
 satisfaction of the debt, see In re Ford ex parte 0. R. (1900), 1 Q. B. 
 264; 69 L. J. Q. B. 74; 7 Mans. 14. 
 
 10 As to the nature of the lien of an execution creditor in Upper 
 Canada prior to The Insolvent Acts of 1864 and 1865, see In re Eeyden 
 (1869), 29 U. C. Q. B. 262, and see per Gwynne dis., in Clarkson v. Ryan 
 (1890), 17 S. C. R. 251. 
 
 1 Clarkson v. Ryan (1890), 17 S. C. R. 251. Compare the words 
 of section 11(10). 
 
 2 And see Patterson v. McCarthy (1874), 35 U. C. Q. B. 14. 
 s 2(gg). 
 
 l 8oott v. Swanson (1907) 39 S. C. R. 229; Adams v. Kiers (1919), 
 46 0. L. R. 113. As to the practice of adding execution creditors as 
 parties under the Act of 1869, see Canada Landed Credit Co. v. Mc- 
 Allister (1874), 21 Gr. 593. But if before the execution creditors have 
 established their claims in the Master's Office the mortgagor has made 
 an assignment the trustee will take the balance of the money free from 
 any liability to satisfy the executions out-of it: Carter v. Stone (1S91), 
 20 0. R. 340. 
 
190 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Sec. 11(3). 
 Sheriff to 
 deliver 
 
 Section ii take precedence over or destroy the preferential lien 
 given by The Creditor's Relief Act to contesting credi- 
 tors 5 . It has been held in the same province that a 
 judgment for alimony which is registered against the 
 lands is not within that section 6 . 
 Sec, ii(2). The English section corresponding with isection 
 11(2) was /enacted after the decision in E$ parte 
 Villars in re Rogers 7 , where after hearing argument 
 twice, the court decided that though sale by the sheriff 
 was an act of bankruptcy, and the title of the trustee 
 related back thereto, it related back only to the 
 moment when the act of bankruptcy was completed, 
 and so did not avoid the transaction. A purchaser, 
 even if he be the execution creditor, will be protected 
 under this section where the sale is the only available 
 act of bankruptcy of which he has notice 8 . 
 
 By section 11(3), the sheriff is not bound to give 
 
 up possession until he receives a copy of the "receiving 
 
 property on order or assignment, and is paid his fees and charges 
 
 fees and and the costs of the execution creditor . The section 
 
 li " provides a procedure for getting possession of the 
 
 goods where the sheriff is in actual possession of the 
 
 goods, or the assignee knows the sheriff has made a 
 
 seizure 10 . 
 
 Semble, the sheriff is entitled to possession money 
 down to the date of payment 1 . The English rule is 
 that the sheriff is only entitled to "costs of the exe- 
 cution" and not entitled to possession money after the 
 commencement of the title of the trustee or at least 
 after notice of the receiving order 2 . In England also 
 
 "Martin v. Fowler (1912), 46 S. C. R. 119; and see Sykes v. Soper 
 (1913)., 29 O. L. R. 193 ; Soper v. Polos (1913), 4 O. W. N. 1258. 
 
 Abraham, v. Abraham (1890), 19 O. R. 259, uffd.j 18 O. A. R. 
 436. See notes to sect'on 11(10). 
 
 7 (1874), 9 Ch. 432; 43 L. J. Bank. 76. 
 
 *Figg v. Moore (1894), 2 Q B. 690: 63 L. J. Q. B. 709; 1 Mans. 
 404 ; Burns-Burns' Trustee v. Brown (1895) , 1 Q. B. 324 ; 64 L. J. Q-B. 
 248; 2 Mans. 23, and notes to sections 3(e) and 32. 
 
 'Smith v. Antipitzky (1890), 10 C. L. T. Occ. N. 368; Thordarson 
 v. Jones (1908), 18 M. L. R. 223 : 9 W. L. R. 233. 
 
 10 Seinbane et al. v. Chrtetopherson (1918), 11 S L. R. 385. 
 
 1 Smith V. Antipitzky, supra ; Thordarson v. Jones, supra, q.V., also 
 as to poundage. „. 
 
 *In re English & Ayling (1903), 1 K. B. 680; 72 L. J. K. B. ^48, 
 10 Mans. 34; Ex parte Sheriff of Essex m re Harrison (1893), 2 Q. U. 
 Ill ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 266; 10 Mor. 106. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 191 
 
 the estate is not liable for costs incurred by possession Section 11 
 held by the sheriff for an unreasonable time at the 
 request of the creditor 3 ; secus, if at the request of the 
 debtor unless. the title of the trustee relates back far 
 enough to avoid the arrangement 4 . Where there has been 
 an interpleader, and sheriff's costs of possession have 
 run during the interpleader the claimant, if he has 
 made a vexatious claim, may be ordered to pay the 
 costs 8 . Semble, on receipt of a copy of the receiving 
 order and on payment to the sheriff of his fees and 
 charges and the costs of the execution creditor the 
 sheriff must deliver over the property even though, 
 interpleader proceedings are pending 6 . 
 
 "Fees" are in England only actual expenses, first Fees, 
 of making enquiries, secondly of seizure; thirdly of 
 mileage; fourthly of the man in possession 7 . Double 
 fees cannot be charged in respect of the same goods for 
 seizure, mileage or possession where there has been 
 only one 'Seizure, journey and man in possession, 
 although different writs have been received from dif- 
 ferent creditors 8 . 
 
 Where the execution is in the hands' of the sheriff Duty of . 
 before receiving order is made the creditor may s B ekeand 
 instruct the sheriff to seize and sell 9 . seU - 
 
 If the sheriff has not seized the property of the Property of 
 debtor, but has been paid moneys by a third party to the d « Dtor - 
 avoid the execution, semble, the sheriff is under no 
 obligation to pay the moneys over to the trustee, but 
 must pay them over to the execution creditor 10 . Where 
 
 'Ex parte Sheriff of Essex in re Finch (1891), 8 Mor. 284. 
 
 'Be Beeston (1899), 1 Q. B. 626; 68 L. J. Q. B. 344; 6 Mans. 27. 
 
 'In re Levy ex parte Sheriff of Essex (1890). 7 Mor. 124. 
 
 'Ex parte Sheriff of Essex in re Harrison (1893), 2 Q. B. Ill; 62 
 L. J. Q. B. 266 ; 10 Mor. 106. 
 
 ' Glassorook v. David & Vaux (1905), 1 K. B. 615 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 
 492. 
 
 8 Glassorook v. David & Vaux, supra ; In re Wells ex\ parte Sheriff 
 of Kent (1893), 68 L. T. N. S. 231; 10 Mor. 69. 
 
 'Gillard v. Mtiligan (1897), 28 0. R. 645; Elliott V. Hamilton 
 (1902), 4 0. L. R. 585; Thordarson v. Jones (1908), 18 M. L. R. 223; 
 9 W. L. R. 233; Woolford v. Levy (1892), 1 Q. B. 772; 61 L. J. Q. B. 
 546, and see notes to sections 11(1), 7(2) and 13a. 
 
 "Bower v. Rett (1895), 2 Q. B. 51, 337 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 483, 772. 
 
192 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Payments 
 direct to 
 creditor. 
 
 Sec. 11 (4). 
 Constitution- 
 ality of the 
 section. 
 
 Original of 
 the section. 
 
 Section ii a payment has been made to the sheriff- in part satig- 
 faction of the debt or to avoid a seizure or sale, quaere 
 whether these moneys are "property of the debtor" 
 within the meaning of that phrase as used in 11(3). 
 Compare section 11(1). 
 
 Section 11(3) has no reference to payments made 
 direct to the execution creditor by the debtor. These 
 may in certain cases be avoided as fraudulent prefer- 
 ences 1 in others, as executions not completely exe- 
 cuted 2 . 
 
 Whether section 11(4), one of the most important, 
 if not one of the most ambiguous in the Act, is valid 
 Dominion legislation, will no doubt depend on whether 
 it is legislation necessarily incidental to a general 
 Bankruptcy or Insolvency Act. 3 
 
 The first part of section 11(4) seems to have been 
 introduced from The Manitoba Assignments Act*, 
 which says : — 
 
 11. No assignment made for the general benefit 
 of creditors under this Act, shall be within the 
 operation of "The Bills of Sale and Chattel Mort- 
 gage Act" , but a notice of the assignment shall, as 
 soon as conveniently possible, be published at least 
 once in The Manitoba Gazette, and not less than 
 twice in at least one newspaper having a general 
 circulation in. the judicial district in which the pro- 
 perty assigned is situate 5 . 
 
 The last part of the section was enacted by section 
 11 of The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921. 
 What is Other "documents" which may be "made" under 
 
 "document." authority of the Act may, if these words are to be 
 
 1 Section 31. 
 
 2 In re Ford ex parte 0. R. (1900) , 1 Q. B. 264 ; 69 h. J. Q. B. 74; 
 
 7 Mans. 14, and see sections 31, 32 and 11(1). 
 
 3 See notes to Chapter IV. 
 
 4 R. S. M. 1913, c. 12, s. 11. -The equally important section 11(15) 
 comes from the same source. 
 
 "The original of this Manitoba section is the Ontario Amendment, 
 48 Vic. c. 26, s. 12(1), to The Ontario Assignments and Preferences Act, 
 passed very shortly after the decision in Rooertson v. Thomas (1885), 
 
 8 O. R. 20. See per Osier, J., Whiting v. Hovey (1886), 13 0. A. B 
 7, 24; and per G-wynne, J., Sovey V. Whiting (1886), 14 S. C. B. 51o, 
 538, 558. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 193 
 
 given their widest interpretation, include orders 6 of the Section n 
 
 courts of Bankruptcy, and the appeal courts of Bank- ~ 
 
 ruptcy of each Province. It should be noted that it is 
 
 only "documents" which are dealt with in the first 
 
 part of 11(4). "Property" is dealt With by 6(3) and 
 
 10. 
 
 A document may be within the operation of an Meaning of 
 enactment in various ways ; as to the effect of the exe- «\haiibe e 
 cution of the document: as to the formalities re- witM ?. the . 
 
 .,.„,, operation ot 
 
 quired for execution ; the description or the property any legisla- 
 te be conveyed or other formalities required for regis- ment." act 
 tration; the necessity for or obligation of registration; 
 the effect of registration or transfer or of the lack of 
 it 7 , and so forth. It is only provincial statute law which 
 is referred to. 
 
 6 See section 13(18), and compare 46(6). 
 
 'See Galcott & Elvm's Contract (1898), 2 Oh. 460. The following 
 provisions of two Ontario Acts are given as typical of Provincial enact- 
 ments which may be affected by section 11(4). E. S. O. 1914, c. 124: 
 The Registry Act : — 
 
 Rbgistbation and its Effect. 
 
 71(1) After the grant from the Crown of land, and letters patent XJnregis- 
 issued therefor, every instrument affecting the land or any part thereof tered instru- 
 shall be adjudged fraudulent and void against any subsequent pur- ments after 
 chaser or mortgagee for valuable consideration without actual notice, grant from 
 unless such instrument is registered before the registration of the the Crown 
 instrument under which the subsequent purchaser or mortgagee claims. :° ~? T ° 
 - 71(2) This section shall not extend to a lease for a term not subsequent 
 exceeding seven years, where the actual possession goes along with the registered 
 lease, but it shall extend to every lease for a longer term than seven years, purchaser or 
 10 Edw. VII. c. 60, s. 70. mortgagee. 
 
 72. Priority of registration shall prevail unless before the prior Exception 
 registration there has been actual notice of the prior instrument by the as to 
 person claiming under the prior registration. 10 Edw. VII. c. 60, s. 71. certain 
 
 75. The registration of an instrument under this or any former leases. 
 Act shall constitute notice' of the instrument to all persons claiming Actual 
 any interest in the land, subsequent to such registration, notwithstand- notice, 
 ing any defect in the proof for registration, but nevertheless it shall be j> .' , . 
 the duty of a registrar not to register any instrument, except on such ^ e no tice 
 proof as is required by this Act. 10 Edw. VII. e. 60, s. 74. 
 
 The trustee is not regarded as a purchaser for value : John Mac- 
 donald & Co. v. Tew (1914), 32 O. L. K. 262; Craig v. McKay (1906), 
 12 O. L. It. 121; Deveoer v. Austin (1875), 3 Pugs. 55. He takes no 
 greater title to the land than the assignor can give, even though his 
 transfer be registered prior to a mortgage previously given : In re Wilson 
 Estate (1915), 33 O. L.-R. 501; Jones v. Barker (1909), 1 Ch. 321; 78 
 L. J. Ch. 167; Collver v. Shaw (1873), 19 Gr. 599. 
 
 R.-S. O. 1914, c. 126, The Land Titles Act, reads:— 
 
 38(1) Every registered owner may, in the prescribed manner, 
 transfer the land or any part thereof. 
 
 (2) The transfer shall be completed 'by the proper Master of Titles 
 
 B.C.— 13 
 
194 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 11 
 
 Property." 
 
 " Or regis- 
 tration of 
 documents 
 affecting title 
 to or liens 
 or charges 
 upon pro- 
 perty." 
 
 Notice to be 
 given. ' 
 
 Notice to be 
 given " as 
 soon as 
 possible." 
 
 The expression "relating to" is not an expression 
 of art. The words which follow fall into two classes : 
 those which are "documents" and those which are not, 
 namely "property or registration of documents affect- 
 ing title to, etc". 
 
 "Property", by section 2(dd) includes money, 
 goods, things in action, land and every description of 
 property, whether real or personal, movable or immov- 
 able, legal or equitable, and whether situate in Canada 
 or elsewhere; also obligations, easements 1 , and every 
 description of estate, interest and profit, present or 
 future, vested or contingent, in, arising out of or inci- 
 dent to property as above defined. 
 
 Provincial enactments relating to registration of 
 documents affecting, title to property include Registry 
 Acts, Land Titles Acts, Chattel Mortgages and Bills of 
 Sale Acts, Mines and Prospecting Acts. See The 
 Canada Evidence Act, K. S. C. 1906, c. 145, s. 17, as to 
 judicial notice being taken of Provincial Acts. 
 
 The transition between the first and second parts 
 of section 11(4), which is suggested by the conjunction 
 "but", is extremely abrupt. It is perhaps intended 
 to suggest that the Act gives, as a substitute for the 
 provincial enactments covered by the apparently 
 sweeping words of section 11(4), a general sort of 
 notice of the receiving order or assignment (but not 
 by this sub-section of any other document), and of 
 the first meeting of creditors. The form of notice is 
 given in Form 20. 
 
 If that is the intention the scheme set up is in no 
 way as effective in protecting innocent purchasers or 
 in giving notice, as the provincial enactments. Even 
 if the trustee mails, the notices for gazetting the same 
 day that the assignment is executed, an appreciable 
 period is bound to elapse before the printed copies 
 of the Canada Gazette are received by the local regis- 
 trars. The Canada Gazette is printed on Fridays 
 
 entering on the register the transferee as owner of the land transferred, 
 and unt'l such entry is made the transferor shall be deemed to re ™ ,a | n 
 the owner of the land. See also sections 68(1) of the same Act; 
 and Rule 38 under The Ontario Land Titles Act. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 195 
 
 and mailed Saturdays. Copy for each, issue must Section 11 
 be in the hands of the King's printer not later than 
 Thursday morning. . If notice of an assignment is 
 mailed on Wednesday in a town within one night's mail 
 of Ottawa, it will not be until Monday morning that 
 the Gazette containing the notice is received; while 
 should the assignment have taken place on a Thursday 
 or Friday, a period of 10 days must elapse before 
 copies of the Gazette are received in localities adjacent 
 to Ottawa 8 . 
 
 The Canada Gazette appears to be intended as the 
 principal means of. giving notice by advertisement. 
 See sections 2(q), 11(5) (7), 15(3), 61(5), 62(3) and 
 77(3) (4). As to publication, see sections 11(14){15), 
 62(3). In these sections the words to gazette and to 
 publish seem to have distinct significations. 
 
 The consideration of the provisions of the Act Title under 
 with respect to title falls into two divisions : — 
 
 (1) Title as between the debtor and the trustee 
 and those who deal with either of them 9 . 
 
 (2) Title as between successive trustees and those 
 who deal with ithem. 
 
 Questions of title as between the debtor and the (i> Title as 
 trustee and those who deal with either of them f all alworand 6 
 
 into two classes: — trustee. 
 
 (a) Transactions affected by the relation back of 
 the title of the trustee. 
 
 (b) Transactions subsequent to the actual date of 
 the receiving order or authorized assignment. 
 
 In cases where the title of the trustee relates back (<0 . 
 to avoid transactions, which the debtor had an osten- affected by 
 sible authority to enter into, section 32 applies in cer- *? ti^tf""* 
 tain eases to protect purchasers and others who have trustee, 
 no notice of an available act of bankruptcy, and deal 
 with the debtor in good faith and for adequate valu- 
 able consideration. 
 
 In the second case, that of transactions subsequent (6) 
 to the date of the receiving order, other considera- ^sequent" 3 
 
 to the actual 
 " Where no injustice has been caused by an inadvertent omission date of the 
 to publish, this may be cured under section 84. B -°- or • i - A - 
 
 * As to a secured creditor and the trustee, see 46(6). 
 
196 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section ii tions arise. Those who framed the policy of the Eng- 
 lish Act evidently considered that when the debtor has 
 been deprived of his property by operation of law 10 
 provision should be made for a document which should 
 be deemed a conveyance, to satisfy the technical 
 requirements of local law with respect to registration 11 . 
 The principal provisions of the Canadian Act with 
 respect to property and title as between the debtor and 
 trustee and purchasers from them; subsequent to the 
 date of the receiving order or authorized assignment, 
 are to be found in .sections' 6(3), 10, 11(4) (5) (8) (9). 
 (10) (14) (15) (17), 12, 20(3) (a) and 34(1). It is not easy 
 to reconcile all the provisions of the Act on this matter. 
 It will no doubt be argued that the effect of 11(4) (17) 
 is that until three months have elapsed from the mak- 
 ing of the receiving order or authorized assignment, 
 it is not necessary to register the receiving order 
 or authorized assignment or to "complete the trans- 
 fer ' n , in order to preserve the priority of, or to evi- 
 dence the title of the trustee over an innocent purchaser 
 for value without notice, who first- registers his con- 
 veyance or "completes his transfer". There are diffi- 
 culties in the way of this interpretation: the fact that 
 the language used is not too clear, and the task of 
 ' reconciling with this interpretation the saving words in 
 11(15). Moreover, the language used seems more 
 capable of effecting the purpose contended for in the 
 case of land under registry systems than in the case 
 of land under land titles systems 2 . If on the other hand 
 
 10 See Selkrig v, Davies (1814), 2 Rose 97, 291, as to notice and 
 the necessity for it under the old law. . _ 
 
 "Section 53(4). See, however, the Canadian section 15(3), with 
 respect to new trustees. As to property acquired by the bankrupt sub- 
 sequently to the receiving order, see section 34(1). 
 
 "'See Ontario Land Titles Act, R. S. O. 1914, e. 126. s. 38. 
 
 2 A distinction also exists 'between the effect of an authorized' 
 assignment and that of a receiving order. In the case of an authorized . 
 assignment the property vests in the trustee by virtue of the assignment ; 
 while in the case of a receiving order it vests in the trustee by force of 
 ■the statute, which operates when the receiving order is made, that is 
 when the order is pronounced, not when it is drawn up and signed. 
 Per Chitty, L.J., in In reCalcott & Minn's Contract (1898), 2 Oh. 460; 
 67 L. J. Ch. 553; 5 Mans. 208; In re Manning (1885), 30 Ch. D. 480; 
 55 L. J. Ch. 613 ; Blount v. WhiteVy, 79 L. T. 635 ; 6 Mans. 48. On the 
 appointment of a new trustee the property vests without any c0 °™y" 
 ance. See as to the provisions made to meet this case. Section 15(3). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 197 
 
 the combined effect of 6(3), 10 and 11(4) (17) is not to section u 
 
 vest the property of the debtor in the trustee, irrespeet- ~ 
 
 ive of the requirements of provincial law, it is clear that 
 
 the effect of these sections is to vest the property of 
 
 the debtor in the trustee subject to compliance with 
 
 the formalities of local law 3 , in which case it is difficult 
 
 to give a reasonable interpretation to section 11(4) (17). 
 
 Turning now to the question of title as between (2) Title as 
 successive trustees and those who deal with them, itg„c^ s ° Te 
 will be noted that section 15(3) provides that whent™s tees h and 
 a new trustee is appointed or substituted, all the pro- deal with 
 perty and estate of the debtor shall forthwith vest in t em ' 
 the new trustee without any conveyance or transfer. 
 That section goes on to state that registration of an 
 affidavit of the trustee's appointment shall have the 
 same effect as the registration of a conveyance or 
 transfer to the new trustee. This matter is more fully 
 discussed in the notes to the section. 
 
 The Dominion Parliament may impose duties onsedi(5). 
 provincially appointed officers in respect of matters aiityofthe" 1 " 
 within Dominion authority 4 . The penalty for refusal section - 
 to' comply with this sub-section is given in 11(13). 
 
 Section 11(5) is defective so far as it does not Defect in the 
 require the registrars, recorders or clerks to index the sectlon - 
 name of every bankrupt and authorized assignor in 
 respect of whose estate a notice appears in the Canada' 
 Gazette. The question whether the debtor carried on 
 business or resided in a province is not the important 
 one. What is important is whether he had property „ 
 in the province ; and this may be unknown to the trus- 
 tee at the time the notice provided by Form 20 is drawn 
 up. 
 
 The form of notice provided does not make it clear 
 whether the place of residence or the place of business 
 or both places of residence and place of business of 
 the bankrupt or assignor should be given. A trustee 
 will be well advised to mention both and to specify the 
 provinces in which he knowsi the debtor carried on 
 business or had property. 
 
 'Cullender v. Colonial Secretary of Lagos (1891), A. C. 460; 60 
 L. J. P. C. 33. 
 
 'Valin v. Langlois (1879), 3 S. C. R. 1. 
 
198 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section ii The publication of the notice in the Gazette and in 
 
 a local newspaper, and the compilation of the index 
 
 required to be kept by this section, are the only means 
 
 provided in the Act for notice with respect to change 
 
 of title of personal property. See, however, in the 
 
 case of real property section 11(8). 
 
 Sec. ii(8)(9). Section 11(8) (9) provides for the registration of 
 
 f e R.a & 101 * the receiving order or authorized assignment in the 
 
 proper ^ an< ^ 'titles or land registration office in every district 
 
 registry. in which the debtor had any real estate or interest 
 
 therein. 
 Time when Section 11(8), which provides for the registration 
 
 musfbe made of the receiving order or assignment, where the debtor 
 seeifcm lies) ^ as rea l e& tate or immovable property, sets no time 
 within which registration is to take place 5 . It is evi- 
 dent that registration of a true copy of the receiving 
 order cannot be made on the very day the receiving 
 order is made. The Act does not state that failure to 
 register will bring into operation the Provincial Acts, 
 which section 11(4) sought to avoid. See, however, 
 section 11(15). 
 Reason for It has from time to time been held in the courts of 1 
 
 urfderlmeri- the United States, under the Bankruptcy Acts then in 
 can Acts, force, that the reason for requiring the assignee to 
 register the assignment 'is that every purchaser of 
 land at an assignee's sale may have recourse to a certi- 
 fied copy of the register as a link in his chain of title, 
 the object of registration not being to vest the title 
 in the assignee; for he had title by virtue of the 
 assignment, and a purchaser from" the insolvent after 
 assignment would take nothing 6 . 
 English The English Act, on the other hand, provides for 
 
 compliance with the formalities of local laws as regards 
 registration and transfer of title. Section 53(4) of 
 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 59, reads : — 
 
 " The certificate of appointment of a trustee 
 •shall, for all purposes of any law in force in any 
 
 6 See as to publication and gazetting 11(4). 
 
 'In re Neale, 3 B. R. 177; Holorook v. Coney (1861), 25 111. 543; 
 Davis v. Anderson (1870), 6 B. R. 145; and cf. Brady v. Otis (1874), 
 14 B. R. 345. See as to the right to compel registration, section 11(14). 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 199 
 
 part of the British Dominions reqiih-ing registra- Section 11 
 tion, enrolment, or recording of conveyances or 
 assignments of property, be deemed to be a con- 
 veyance or assignment of property, and may be reg- 
 istered, enrolled and recorded accordingly" 7 . 
 
 The present Act does not state what is the object Scheme of 
 of the registration required by section 11(8). Regis- i> rese,lt Act 
 tration is not required in the case of movable or per- 
 sonal property 8 . A definite effect is given to registra- 
 tion by section 11(10), which should be compared With 
 section 15(3). The effect of omission to register is 
 given in section 11(15) (17). 
 
 Section 11(10) (11), is the only one in the Act which Effect given 
 gives any effect to registration of the receiving order ^on^yse*" 
 or authorized assignment, compare section 15(3).n(i0)(ii). 
 Semble, the document must be accepted for registration 
 even though unaccompanied by the affidavit required 
 by section 4 of The Homestead's Act, 1920, of Sas- 
 katchewan 9 . 
 
 Registration will not give the assignment priority 
 over a judgment for alimony which, when registered, 
 has by force of the provincial statute the same effect 
 as if the owner had created a life annuity on his lands. 
 In such case although a judgment in form it is to be 
 considered as a charge by deed 10 . Nor does the effect 
 given to registration by section 11(10) apply to certain 
 judgments or certificates of judgment in Nova Scotia 
 and New Brunswick 1 . 
 
 As to what is meant by the phrase "completely 
 executed by payment" in section 11(10), see notes to 
 section 11(1). The lien mentioned in section 11(10), 
 is for the costs of registration and! sheriff's fees, and 
 not as in 11(1), for "one only bill of costs". 
 
 'See In re Calcott & fflvm's Contract (1898), 2 Oh. 460; 67 h. J. 
 Ch. 553; 5 Mans. 208; Callender v. Colonial Secretary of Lagos (1891), 
 A. C. 460; 60 L. J. P. C. 33. 
 
 8 Compare in the case of Bills of Sale, Chattel Mortgages and Pro- 
 vincial Assignments Acts, R. S. O. 1914, c. 135, a. 2 ; R. S. M. 1913, 
 c 12, s. 11. 
 
 'In re City Garage and Machine Co., Ltd. (1921), 1 C. B. R. 412; 
 1 W. W. R. 371 (Milligan, M.T.). 
 
 10 Abraham v. Abraham (1890), 19 O. R. 259 ; affd. 18 O. A. R. 436. 
 
 ^nae). 
 
200 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 11 
 
 Sec. 
 11(13)(14). 
 
 Meaning of 
 Sec. 11(15). 
 
 Section 11(13) (14) speaks of the omission to pub- 
 lish, not of the omission to gazette* , Elsewhere 
 throughout the Act a distinction is maintained between 
 publication and gazetting. See notes to section 11(4). 
 
 The time and manner of publication are prescribed 
 by section 11(4). 
 
 The Manitoba Assignments Act, from which sec- 
 tion 11(15) was copied, reads: — 
 
 "15. The omission to publish or register as 
 aforesaid, or any irregularity in the publication or 
 registratiqn, shall not invalidate the assignment" 2 . 
 
 The saving clause which has been grafted on to 
 the otherwise fairly understandable provisions of The 
 Bankruptcy Act, not only introduces a great element 
 of doubt on the whole question of title, but is itself 
 remarkably indefinite. It is difficult to decide when the 
 rights of innocent purchasers for value will commence. 
 The interpretation may be that the debtor cannot con- 
 vey title to such a purchaser by a sale on the day 
 after the making of the receiving order (for that would 
 be sooner than publication is required) 3 , but that he 
 may be able to convey a good title fifteen days later 
 (for if there is no publication or registration by that 
 time there has been an omission to publish within the 
 time directed by 11(4), and an omission to register 
 within a reasonable time 4 ). An alternative interpreta- 
 tion is that the debtor can convey a good title to inno- 
 cent purchasers for value at any time until there has 
 been publication in the case of personalty, and at least 
 
 2 R. S. M. 1913, c. 12, s. 15. 
 
 3 Note that no time is set within which registration must be made. 
 See notes to section 11(8). 
 
 4 See 11 (4) ,and 42(1) (2). No time is given within which registra- 
 tion must take place. Contrast the English Act (1831), 1 & 2 Wm. IV. 
 c. 56, ss. 25 and 26. which provided that the registration of a certificate 
 of appointment of a trustee should have the like effect as the recording 
 of a conveyance ; provided that the title of a purchaser for value without 
 notice of the 'bankruptcy, who had registered his deed previous to the 
 registration of the certificate of appointment, should not he invalidated 
 by reason of the vesting of the property in the trustee unless the certifi- 
 cate should be registered in the United Kingdom within two months 
 from the date of appointment and within all other places within twelve 
 
 months from the date of the appointment. See Ex parte (1832), 
 
 1 Dea. & C. 349. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY. ACT. 201 
 
 registration in the case of realty 5 . The difficulty with Section 11 
 this interpretation is that the rights of innocent pur- 
 chasers for value are only saved where there has been 
 an omission to publish or "register or an irregularity in 
 the publication or registration; they are not by this 
 paragraph 11(15) saved in the interim between the 
 making of the receiving order and the time when pub- 
 lication or registration should take place. If they are 
 saved in the interim it will be by the effect of those 
 provincial laws which are not touched by 11(4). It 
 should be noted that the phrase under discussion, 
 which is "neither the omission to publish or register 
 as aforesaid", contemplates the publication and reg- 
 istration which is required by the Dominion Statute 
 and not that contemplated by any Provincial 
 Statute. 
 
 The phrase "innocent purchasers for value" is also Meaning of 
 used in section 12 ; but there as the matter under dis- p^Xasers 
 cussion is the relation back of an amendment, there is for value." 
 much less difficulty in determining the meaning to be 
 given to the words. Various tests of "innocence" 
 might be suggested in applying the saving clause in 
 section 11(15), as whether the purchaser was aware 
 of the existence of the receiving order; or of the pre- 
 sentation of a petition ; or of an available act of bank- 
 ruptcy; or of the insolvency of the debtor; or of his 
 reputed insolvency. Compare 11(17). 
 
 ° It can be argued that registration and publication are not made 
 notice to all the world by The Bankruptcy Act, and section 11(15) is 
 ■ not sufficient to reintroduce whatever provincial laws have been over- 
 ridden by section 11(4) . See as to notice under the Act of 1861 : Wood v. 
 Dunn (1866), L. R. 2 Q. B. 73; 36 L. J. Q. B. 27. See where the 
 word " void " in section 47 of the Act of 1883 was construed "voidable ", 
 so as to protect bona -fide purchasers for value in In re Brail ex parte 
 Norton (1893), 2 Q. B. 381; 62 L. J. Q. B. 457; 10 Mor. 166; In re 
 Holden ex parte 0. R. (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 43; 57 L. J. Q. B. 47; In re 
 Carter & Kenderdine's Contract (1897), 1 Ch. 776; 66 L. J. Ch. 408; 
 4 Mans. 34, and notes to section 29. In In re Hart ex parte Green 
 (1912), 3 K. B. 6, 11 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 1213 ; 19 Mans. 334. Cozens-Hardy, 
 M.It., said : " The Courts of Equity have for centuries refused to 
 grant relief against a purchaser for value without notice, in whom or in 
 a trustee for whom a legal title is vested ". and see Ex> parte Brown 
 in re Vansittart (No. 2), (1893), 2 Q. B. 377; 62 L. J. Q. B. 279; 10 
 Mor. 44; Has parte O. R. in re Tankard (1899), 2 Q. B. 57; 68 L. J. 
 Q. B. 670 ; 6 Mans. 188, and cases cited in Ex parte Slobodinsky in re 
 Moore (1903), 2 K. B. 517, 531, 532 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 883 ; 10 Mans; 341. 
 
202 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 12 Section 11(16) was enacted by section 7 of The 
 Sec. 11(16). Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1920 6 . 
 
 Amendment 12. No advantage" shall be taken of or gained 
 mentby 1 " °y an Y creditor through any mistake, defect 
 
 Jud s«- or imperfection in any authorized assign- 
 
 ment or in any receiving order or proceed- 
 ings connected therewith, if the same can 
 be amended or corrected ; and any mistake, 
 defect or imperfection may be amended by 
 the court. Such amendment may be made 
 on application of the trustee or of any cre- 
 ditor on such notice being given to other 
 parties concerned as the judge shall think 
 reasonable ; and the amendment when made 
 shall have relation back to the date of the 
 assignment or petition in bankruptcy, but 
 not so as to prejudice the rights of innocent 
 purchasers for value. 
 
 Cross References Act: Proceedings not to be invalidated by 
 formal defects, 84; amendment of proceedings generally, 68(4) ; evidence 
 of regularity of proceedings, 77 (2) (3) (4) ; innocent purchaser for 
 value, 11(15), and see 13(14), 32. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: Provincial Assignments Acts, R. S. 0. 
 1914, c. 134, s. 16 ; R. S. M. 1913, c. 12, s. 10 ; R. S. N. S. 1900, c. 145, 
 s. 11 ; R. S. S. 1909, c. 142, s. 11 ; Alberta 1907', c. 6, s. 10 ; R. S. N, B. 
 1903, c. 141, s 10. 
 
 This section has been introduced from The Mani- 
 toba or the Ontario Assignments Act 7 . Section 68(4) 
 gives a general discretionary power of amendment, 
 and formal defects are provided against in section 84. 
 It will be noted that the amendment relates back to 
 the date of the assignment or petition in bankruptcy 
 and not to the date of the execution of the assignment 8 , 
 or the date of the service of the petition 9 , or to the 
 date of the presentation of the petition 10 . 
 
 "See under the Act of 1869 in Nova Scotia: Deveber v, Austin 
 (1875), 16 N. B. R. (3 Pugs.) 55. 
 
 <;R. S. M. 1913, c. 12, s. 11 ; R. S. O. 1914, c. 134, s. 16. 
 8 Section 25. 
 Section 4(10). 
 10 Section 25. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 203 
 
 It has been held that the striking out from a printed Section 13 
 form of all reference to real estate in an assignment 
 purporting to be under The Ontario Assignments Act, 
 48 Vic. c. 26, being an intentional act, was not such a 
 mistake, defect or imperfection as could be remedied 
 under section 10 of that Act 1 . 
 
 Composition, Extension or Scheme of Arrange- 
 ment. 
 
 13 (1) Where an insolvent debtor intends to composition 
 make a proposal for,— Seme of 
 
 (a) a composition in satisfaction of his arrangement. 
 ' debts; or, 
 
 (b) an extension of time for payment 
 thereof ; or, 
 
 (c) a scheme of arrangement of his affairs ; 
 he may, either before or after the making of 
 a receiving order against him or the making 
 of an authorized assignment by him, require 
 in writing an authorized trustee to convene 
 at the office of such trustee a meeting of such 
 debtor's creditors, for the consideration of 
 such proposal. In case the convening of 
 such meeting is required after a receiving 
 order or assignment has been made only, the 
 trustee named in such order or assignment, 
 or his successor, shall be authorized to con- 
 vene it. 
 
 (2) The debtor shall at the time when he Proceedings 
 requires the convening of such meeting, or y 
 within such time as the trustee may then 
 fix, lodge with the trustee,— 
 (a) a true statement of the debtor's affairs, 
 including a list of his creditors, which list 
 shall show the post office address of and 
 the amount payable to each creditor, the 
 whole statement being verified by the 
 
 'Blam v Peaker (1889), 18 O. R. 109. See under the Act of 1869 : 
 Parlee v. The Agricultural Insurance Co. (1876), 3 Pugs. 476. 
 
204 
 Section 13 
 
 Trustee to 
 convene 
 meeting of 
 creditors on. 
 proposal for 
 composition, 
 extension or 
 scheme of 
 arrangement. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 debtor by way of statutory declaration ; 
 and, 
 (&) a proposal in writing signed by the 
 debtor, embodying the' terms of the pro- 
 posed composition, extension or scheme 
 and setting out the particulars of any 
 sureties or securities proposed. 
 
 (3) As soon as possible after an authorized 
 trustee has been required to convene a meet- 
 ing of creditors to consider a proposal of a 
 composition, extension or scheme of arrange- 
 ment, he shall fix a date for such meeting 
 and send by registered mail to every known 
 creditor (a) at least ten days' notice of the 
 time and place of meeting, the day of mailing 
 to count as the first day's notice, (&) a con- 
 densed statement of the assets and liabili- 
 ties of the debtor, (c) a list of his creditors 
 and (d) a copy of his proposal. If any meet- 
 ing of his creditors whereat a statement or 
 list of the debtor's assets, liabilities and 
 creditors was presented has been held before 
 the trustee is so required to convene such 
 meeting to consider such proposal and at the 
 time when the debtor requires the convening 
 of such meeting the condition of the debtor's 
 estate remains substantially the same as at 
 the time of such former meeting, the trustee 
 may omit observance of the provisions iden- 
 tified as (&) and (c) in this subsection. If 
 at the meeting so convened to consider such 
 proposal or at any subsequent meeting of 
 creditors a majority of all the creditors and 
 holding two-thirds in amount of all the 
 proved debts resolves to accept the proposal, 
 either as made or as altered or modified at 
 the request of the meeting, it shall be deemed 
 to be duly accepted by the creditors, and if 
 approved by the court shall be binding on 
 all the creditors. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. ' 305 
 
 (3a) The provisions of the five immediately section 13 
 next following subsections shall apply only proposal of 
 in case the proposal of a composition, exten- 0°™?^™ 
 sion or scheme of arrangement is made ment before 
 before a receiying order or authorized as- ITael^m 
 signment has been made. hiVbeen 11 * 
 
 (3&) At any meeting of creditors to consider made - 
 a proposal of a composition, extension or app^tedto 
 scheme of arrangement a like majority of administer 
 the creditors to that which would be compet- estltTor 011 
 ent to accept the proposal may by resolution debtor^ ° f 
 appoint a committee of not more than five 
 persons to represent the creditors, and such 
 ■committee or a majority thereof may, if the 
 court, upon the joint application of the 
 trustee and the debtor, shall confirm the ac- 
 tion of the meeting, and subject to any limi- 
 tations imposed from time to time by formal 
 resolution of like majority of the creditors 
 as aforesaid, proceed by itself, its solicitors 
 or agents, to investigate the affairs of the 
 debtor to the end that through the committee 
 the creditors may be intelligently advised 
 whether to accept or reject the proposal. The 
 court, when it confirms the action of the 
 meeting or subsequently thereto, may, upon 
 the joint application of the trustee and the 
 debtor, authorize the committee, by itself or 
 the debtor or jointly with him, to administer 
 and carry on the estate or business of the 
 debtor in the interest of the creditors gener- 
 ally, pending acceptance or rejection by powers of 
 them of the debtor's proposal, or the f ur- committee - 
 ther order of the court, and in particular, — 
 (i) To compromise any debts, claims and Compromise 
 liabilities, whether present or future, cer- debtor ms 
 tain or contingent, liquidated or unliqui- *f£™,f 
 dated, subsisting or supposed to subsist 
 between the debtor and any person who 
 may have incurred any liability to the 
 debtor, on the receipt of such sums, pay- 
 
#06 
 Section 13 
 
 Compromise 
 of creditors' 
 claims. 
 
 Mortgage or 
 pledge 
 property of 
 debtor. 
 
 Action of 
 committee 
 to be bind- 
 ing upon 
 creditors. 
 
 Costs and 
 expenses 
 fixed by court 
 and payable 
 out of 
 debtor's 
 estate. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 able at such times and on such terms as 
 may be agreed ; 
 
 (ii) To compromise or otherwise arrange, as 
 may be thought expedient, with creditors 
 or persons claiming to be creditors, in 
 respect of any debts provable or claims 
 made against the debtor or his estate ; 
 
 (iii) To mortgage- or pledge any part or 
 parts of the property of the debtor for the 
 purpose of raising money for the payment 
 of his debts or any of them or. for the mak- 
 ing of payment for goods ordered or to 
 secure money advances made to or .ob- 
 tained by or for the debtor by or with the 
 approval of the committee, for the pur- 
 pose of carrying on such business ; 
 and all acts of the committee or a major- 
 ity thereof and of the trustee and of the 
 debtor done under authority of this sec- 
 tion and by, or by the direction or with the 
 approval of such committee or a majority 
 thereof, but subject to such limitations as 
 the creditors shall have imposed as afore- 
 said, shall be binding upon all the credi- 
 tors, and in particular all debts and lia- 
 bilities incurred for or by the debtor in 
 respect of moneys borrowedor goods pur- 
 chased for the purpose of continuing, by 
 or under the direction or with the appro- 
 val of such committee or a majority 
 thereof, the business of the debtor or for 
 the payment of claims and debts, the pay- 
 ment of which the committee or a majority 
 thereof has directed or approved, shall, 
 with the reasonable costs and expenses of 
 the committee, and of the trustee, and of 
 fair remuneration for the trustee's ser- 
 vices, the whole to be fixed by the court, if 
 the debtor shall thereafter be adjudged a 
 bankrupt or shall make an authorized 
 assignment, be payable out of the assets 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 207 
 
 and property of the debtor in priority to section 13 
 the claims of unsecured creditors. 
 
 (3c) The creditors may, by a simple majority of Appoint- 
 those present at any meeting, revoke thefi 1 j£ 1 t g* f nd 
 appointment of any member or members of vacancies^, 
 their committee and in such event, or in 
 ease of the death, resignation or absence 
 from the province of any of the committee, 
 may appoint another or others to act per- 
 manently or temporarily in their stead. 
 
 (3d) If at any meeting of creditors to consider cable or 
 the proposal the chairman shall decide that proff*? 1 " 
 any creditor has not had sufficient time to debts at 
 prove his claim in manner by this Act meetmgs - 
 required, the chairman may accept cable or 
 telegraphic communications as sufficient 
 proof of the debt due to such" creditor and 
 sufficient authority to the person named or 
 mentioned therein to vote or act for such 
 creditor at such meeting, whereupon, as 
 respects the proof and action of such credi- 
 tors, all properly applicable provisions of 
 this Act for the purposes of such meeting 
 shall be deemed fully complied with. 
 
 (3e) When proceedings are taken under the Heading of 
 immediately preceding four subsections andTrms 3 ' 
 before the making of any receiving order or ^| r u ^ e 
 authorized assignment all other applicable proceedings, 
 provisions of this Act shall apply but no 
 document in- such proceedings shall be 
 headed "The Bankruptcy Act," nor shall 
 the terms "bankrupt" or "bankruptcy" nor 
 "assignor" or "assignment", be applied 
 either to a person who before any receiving 
 order or authorized assignment has been 
 made makes a proposal for composition, 
 extension or arrangement, nor to such pro- 
 posal, unless and until the provisions of the 
 immediately next following subsection of 
 this Act shall have come into effect. All such 
 documents shall be headed "In the Matter of 
 
208 
 Section 13 
 
 If proposals 
 not accepted, 
 nor 
 
 confirmed, 
 debtor may 
 be adjudged 
 bankrupt 
 and receiv- 
 ing order 
 made. 
 
 Creditor may 
 assent or 
 dissent by 
 letter. 
 
 Application 
 f on approval. 
 
 Examination 
 of debtor. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 a Proposal by . . . for a Composition", or 
 "In the Matter of a Proposal by . . . for an 
 Extension of Credit", or "In the Matter of a 
 Proposal by ... of a Scheme of Arrangement 
 of his Affairs", as the circumstances may 
 require. 
 (3/) If as the result of proceedings instituted 
 under the five immediately preceding sub- 
 sections neither the proposal of the debtor, 
 nor any further proposal by him or by the 
 creditors by way of amendment is accepted, 
 or confirmed by the court, then, notwith- 
 standing anything in this Act, the court, 
 unless good cause for action otherwise shall 
 appear, shall, upon proof of such, fact, and 
 without more, upon application of the trus- 
 tee or of the committee or a majority thereof, 
 adjudge the debtor bankrupt and make a 
 . receiving order. The court may consider an 
 offer of the debtor to forthwith execute an 
 authorized assignment as good cause for 
 such action otherwise. 
 
 (4) Any creditor who has proved his debt may 
 assent to or dissent from the proposal by a 
 letter to that effect addressed postage pre- 
 paid and registered to the trustee, prior to 
 the meeting, and any such assent or dissent 
 if received by the trustee at or prior to the 
 meeting shall have effect as if the creditor 
 had been present and had voted at the meet- 
 ing. 
 
 (5) The trustee shall forthwith, if the proposal 
 is accepted by the creditors, apply to the 
 court to approve it. 
 
 (6) If creditors who hold ten per cent, or more 
 in amount of proved debts request the 
 examination of the debtor, the trustee shall 
 cause him to be examined under oath before 
 the registrar or other officer appointed for 
 that purpose by General Rules and his testi- 
 mony to be taken down in writing. The 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 209 
 
 testimony, so taken, may be read upon the section 13 
 hearing of the application for the approval ~ 
 of the composition or scheme of arrange- 
 ment. The court if not satisfied with such 
 testimony as so taken, may direct that the 
 debtor attend before the court for the pur- 
 pose of further examination. 
 
 (7) The court shall, before approving the pro- court to 
 posal, hear a report of the trustee as to the oltrusTeef 
 terms thereof, and as to the conduct of the 
 debtor, and any objections which may be 
 
 made by or on behalf of any creditor. 
 
 (8) If the court is of opinion that the terms of court may 
 the proposal are not reasonable, or are not a^prov^the 
 calculated to benefit the general body of proposal, 
 creditors, or in any case in which the court 
 
 is required, where the debtor is adjudged 
 bankrupt, to refuse his discharge, the court 
 shall refuse to approve the proposal. 
 
 (9) If any facts are proved on proof of which Reasonable 
 the court would be required either to refuse, security - 
 suspend or attach conditions to the debtor's 
 discharge were he adjudged bankrupt, the 
 
 court shall refuse to approve the proposal 
 unless it provides reasonable security for 
 payment of not less than fifty cents on the 
 dollar on all the unsecured debts provable 
 against the debtor's estate. 
 
 (10) In any other case the court (subject to the Power of 
 provisions of subsection sixteen of this sec- court 
 tion) may either approve or refuse to 
 approve the proposal. 
 
 (11) If the court approves the proposal, the Evidence 
 approval may be testified by the seal of the ° approval - 
 •court being attached to the instrument Con- 
 taining the terms of the proposed composi- 
 tion, extension or scheme, or by the terms 
 
 being embodied in an order of the court. 
 
 (12) A composition, extension or scheme 
 accepted and approved in pursuance of this 
 
 B.C.— 14 
 
210 
 
 Section 13 
 
 Approval 
 binding on 
 creditors, but 
 does not 
 release 
 debtor from 
 judgments. 
 
 Provisions 
 may be 
 enforced. 
 
 Proceedings 
 in case of 
 default. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section shall be binding on all the creditors 
 so far as relates to any debts due to them 
 from the debtor and provable under this 
 Act, but shall not release the debtor from 
 any liability under a judgment against him 
 in an action for seduction, or under an 
 affiliation order or for alimony, or under a 
 judgment against him as co-respondent in a 
 matrimonial case or for necessaries of life 
 or alimentary debts, except to such an extent 
 and under such conditions as the court 
 expressly orders in respect of such liability. 
 
 (13)The provisions of a composition, extension 
 or scheme under this Act may be enforced 
 by the court on application by any person 
 interested, and any disobedience of an order 
 of the court made on the application shall 
 be deemed a contempt of court. 
 
 (14) If default is made in payment of any 
 instalment due in pursuance of the composi- 
 tion, extension or scheme, or if it appears 
 to the court, on satisfactory evidence, that 
 the composition, extension or scheme can- 
 not, in consequence of legal difficulties, or 
 for any sufficient cause, proceed without 
 injustice or undue delay to. the creditors or 
 to the debtor, or that the approval of the 
 court was obtained by fraud, the court may, 
 if it thinks fit, on application by the trustee 
 or by any creditor, adjudge the debtor bank- 
 rupt, make a, receiving order against him 
 and annul the composition, extension or 
 scheme, but without prejudice to the validity 
 of any sale, disposition or payment duly 
 made, or thing duly done, under or in pur- 
 suance of the composition, extension or 
 scheme. Where a debtor is adjudged bank- 
 rupt under this subsection, any debt prov- 
 able in other respects, which has been con- 
 tracted before the adjudication, shall be 
 provable in the bankruptcy. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 211 
 
 (15) All parts of this Act shall, so far as the section 13 
 nature of the case and the terms of the com- Definitions, 
 position, , extension or scheme admit, 
 
 apply thereto as if the terms ," trustee," 
 "bankruptcy," "bankrupt," "assignment," 
 " authorized assignment," " assignor," 
 "authorized assignor," "order" and "order 
 of adjudication " included respectively a 
 composition, extension or scheme of arrange- 
 ment, a compounding, extending or arrang- 
 ing debtor and an order approving the com- 
 position, extension or scheme. 
 
 (16) No composition, extension or scheme shall Priority of 
 be approved by the court which does not debts ' 
 provide for the payment in priority to other 
 
 debts of all debts directed to be so paid in 
 the distribution of the property of a bank- 
 rupt or authorized assignor. 
 
 (17) The acceptance by a creditor of a com- Effect of 
 position, extension or scheme shall not acee P tance - 
 release any person who under this Act would 
 
 not be released by an order of discharge if 
 the debtor had been adjudged bankrupt. 
 
 (18) Where a debtor has been adjudged bank- court may 
 rupt or has made an authorized assignment, j^^^' 
 and the court subsequently approves the bankruptcy 
 composition, extension or scheme, it mayment. 
 make an order annulling the bankruptcy or 
 authorized assignment and vesting the pro- 
 perty of the debtor in him or in such other 
 person as the court may appoint on such 
 
 terms and subject to such conditions, if any, 
 as the court may declare. 
 
 (19) Notwithstanding the acceptance and€om P osition 
 approval of a composition, extension or uncertain 6 
 scheme, it shall not be binding on any credi- ^.hout 
 tor so far as regards a debt or liability from assent. 
 which, under the provisions of this Act, the 
 debtor would not be discharged by an order 
 
 of discharge in bankruptcy, unless the credi- 
 tor assents, (as, for the purposes solely of 
 
212 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 13 proceedings relating to a composition, exten- 
 
 sion or scheme he may, notwithstanding any- 
 thing in this Act, so assent) to such composi- 
 tion, extension or scheme. 
 
 Cross References Act: Section 13(1) Insolvent defined, 2(jj) ; 
 debtor defined, 2(o) ; making of R.O., 4(5) ; of A.- A., 9. 
 
 To sec. 13(2) : Statement of affairs, 54(1) (2) ; offence in relation 
 to, 89 (/).; proof of debt, 45. 
 
 To sec. 13(3) : Proof of debt, 45 ; trustee may at any time call meet- 
 ing, 42(3) ; offence of making a false claim, 92; carrying on business, 
 5(2)', 20(1) (6), 27. 
 
 To sec. 13(6) : Examination of debtor, 56. 
 
 To sec. 13(7) : Report of trustee, 58(3) ; is prima facie evidence 
 under sections 59 and 60, see section 60(2). 
 
 To see. 13(8) : Cases where court required to refuse discharge, 
 58(5). . - 
 
 To sec. 13(9) • Cases where court required to refuse or suspend 
 or attach" conditions, 58(5) and 59. 
 
 To sec. 13(12) : Debts provable, 44; release of debtor by discharge. 
 61 ; composition, extension or scheme to bind the Crown, 86. 
 
 To sec. 13(16) : Priority of claims, 51. 
 
 To sec. 13(17) : Partners and sureties not released by order of dis- 
 charge, 61 ( 3 ) ; no release from penalty for criminal offence, 94. 
 
 To sec. 13(18')': Annulment of adjudication, 62; returns to Domin- 
 ion Statistician. 24 (2) (o). 
 
 To sec. 13(19) : Debts not discharged by an order of discharge, 61 ; 
 approval of composition brings no exemption from criminal liability, 94. 
 
 Stay of proceedings, 13A. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Form of proposal, 98 ; notice to credi- 
 tors, 99 ; opposed application, 100 ; hearing and appeal. 101 ; costs of 
 application, 102 ; evidence and order, 103 ; correction of formal slips. 
 104 ; vesting of property when composit ; on annulled, 105 ; proof of 
 debts in composition, 106 ; examination of debtor, 131 to 134. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Proposal for a composition, 23; pro- 
 posal for an extension of time or scheme, 24 ; notice to creditors where 
 debtor submits offer of composition, extension or scheme, 21 ; voting 
 letter, 22 ; resolution accepting composition, 25 ; resolution accepting 
 extension or scheme of arrangement, 26 ; order appointing day for 
 hearing, 27 ; notice to creditors of applicat : on to court to approve 
 composition, extension or scheme, 28 ; report of authorized trustee oh 
 proposal' for composition, extension or scheme. 29; order approving 
 composition or scheme, 30 ; order refusing to approve composition, 
 extension or scheme, 31 ; proof of debt, 47, 48 ; appointments for 
 examination of debtor, 62 ; declaration by shorthand writer, 63 ; notes 
 of examination of debtor or others. 64 ; application to be by motion, 14. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, ss. 16, 17, 21 ; 
 Canadian Act, 1875, ss. 49 to 60. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Distinction between composition, scheme and extension. 
 Distinction between composition and receiving order as regards 
 
 property affected. 
 Acceptance and approval of composition gives debtor all rights of 
 
 ownership. 
 Order approving composition equivalent to discharge. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 213 
 
 Composition in case of partnership. Section 13 
 
 Time when proposal may be made. 
 
 Motive of those voting on the proposal. 
 
 Report of the trustee. '_ 
 
 Court may refuse to approve the composition — 
 
 Terms not reasonable or not calculated to benefit the general 
 body of creditors. 
 
 Cases in which the court is required to refuse discharge. 
 
 Facts' on which the court required to refuse, suspend or attach 
 conditions to discharge. 
 
 Where the scheme provides reasonable security for the pay- 
 ment of not less than 50c. on the dollar. 
 
 Other cases in which the court may approve or refuse. 
 Refusal followed by adjudication. 
 
 When the composition is approved it binds dissentient creditors. 
 Differences' between a discharge and the approval of a composition. 
 Power to adjudicate when default is made — 
 
 No relation back of title of trustee. 
 
 Effect on surety. 
 Effect of section 13(15). 
 Section 13(17). 
 Section 13(18). 
 Section 13(19). 
 
 Section 13(3) is in the form enacted by The Bank- 
 ruptcy Act Amendment Act, 192T. Sections 13 (3a) to 
 13(3/) were first enacted by The Bankruptcy Act 
 Amendment Act, 1921. Sections 13 (3a) to 13(3/) 
 appear to make possible the carrying on of the busi- 
 ness of the debtor in a wider way than that provided 
 by section 20(1) (b). 
 
 "Where a debtor keeps his assets and undertakes to Distinction 
 pay over to the creditors a certain sum, that is a com- position. 00 " 1 
 position; while if he makes over his assets to be extension 1 " 1 
 administered by a trustee that is a scheme 2 . It may 
 be that an extension will have features in common 
 
 "The previous section read: — 
 
 13(3). The trustee shall, when so required, convene a meeting of 
 creditors, and shall, at least ten days before the meeting, send to each 
 Creditor a notice of the time and place of such meeting and a copy of the 
 debtor's statement of affairs and of his proposal ; if at such meeting a 
 majority in number of creditors who hold two-thirds in amount of the 
 proved debts resolve to accept the proposal, either as made or as altered 
 or modified at the request of the meeting, it shall be deemed to be duly 
 accepted by the creditors, and if approved by the Court shall be binding 
 on all the creditors. 
 
 2 In re Griffith (1886), 3 Mor. 111. As to the difference between a 
 composition and an assignment, see Grundy v. Johnston (1896), 28 O.R. 
 147. For the general powers of the court in composition procepd : n"s. 
 see section 63 and In re Littler ex parte Manchester and Liverpool District 
 Banking Co. (1874), L R. 18 Eq. 249 ; 43 L. J. Bank. 73 ; where it was 
 held under the Act of 1869, that the court had no jurisdiction to order a 
 sale at the instance of an equitable .mortgagee. For an example of a 
 scheme, see In re Morter ex parte Nichols (1897), 76 L. T. 532. 
 
214 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 13 with the arrangements known as a Letter of License 
 or a Deed of Inspectorship. Such arrangements are 
 not necessarily acts of bankruptcy 3 . 
 Distinction A composition or scheme of arrangement, though 
 position and" approved by the Court and so by statute binding on 
 orders 8 a ^ the creditors, is at bottom only a contract between 
 regards the parties. It thus differs essentially from a receiv- 
 aScted y ing order. Under a composition or scheme of arrange- 
 ment, after-acquired property is not brought in unless 
 the contract says so 4 . In the absence of such a pro- 
 vision and of words indicating an intent to define 
 exactly the property to be taken by the trustee, the 
 property of the debtor divisible among his creditors" 
 will, it is considered, be the property to which the 
 debtor was entitled/ at the date of the approval of the 
 scheme by the Court when it became completely opera- 
 tive 6 . Such property would probably include a rever- 
 sionary interest whether vested or contingent, but not 
 a mere expectancy 7 . 
 Acceptance The effect in England of the acceptance and 
 
 vaioTeom- approval of a composition is to give the debtor all 
 giVes 10 debtor rights of ownership and disposition over his property 
 ail rights of to such an extent that a purchaser from him is not 
 ownei., lp. k ounc j £ Q i n q U i re as ^ the payment of instalments 
 
 under the composition 8 . Therefore the debtor may, at 
 least where the composition provides that he is to carry- 
 on the business, pledge the assets in order to raise 
 . money for the purpose of the business, or for the pur- 
 pose of paying the composition; but he may not after 
 the date of the approval of the composition in a case 
 where the terms of the composition do not authorize it, 
 
 3 Forsyth, the Law Eelating to Composition with Creditors, 2nd 
 edition 1844, pp. 2-7. 
 
 4 In re Groom, England v. Provincial Assets Co. (1891), 1 Oh. 696, 
 705 ; 60 L. J. Oh. 373. 
 
 5 Sections 13(15) and 25. 
 
 6 In re Croom, England v. Provincial Assets Co., supra, at 705. 
 
 * S. C. and ex parte Dawes in re Moon (1886). 17 Q. B. D. 275; 3 
 Mor. 105; In re and ex parte Clarke (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 426; 53 
 L. J. Ch. 1063 ; 1 Mor. 143. 
 
 8 In re Kearley & Clayton's Contract (1878), 7 Oh. V>. 615; 47 L. J. 
 Ch. 494 ; In re McEenry ex parte McDermott (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 580; 
 Ex parte Burrell in re Robinson (1876), 1 Ch. D. 537, 547; 45 L. J. 
 Bank. 68. Under the English practice composition proposals are con- 
 sidered only after a receiving order has been made. The English receiving 
 order does not vest the debtor's property in the trustee. See English 
 sections 16 and 17. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY AVT. 215 
 
 pledge the assets as an indemnity to the surety against section 13 
 his liability in respect of the composition 9 , though 
 semble he may before the acceptance of the composi- 
 tion, agree with the surety to indemnify him against 
 liability by depositing goods with him and if there is 
 nothing inconsistent therewith in the terms of the 
 composition such an agreement may be good 10 . 
 
 If there is nothing to the contrary in the composi- Order ap- 
 tion or scheme, such as the fixing of a date for the composition, 
 discharge of the debtor, the order approving the com- fJ^diarL 
 position or scheme is equivalent to a discharge 1 , but 
 not to the extent of permitting the debtor to agree 
 with a creditor after the date of the order, but before 
 the composition has been fully paid, to pay the credi- 
 tor in full 2 . 
 
 It was repeatedly held under previous Canadian Composition 
 Acts that in the case of a partnership the only composi- partnership, 
 tion for Which provision was made was one extending 
 to both partners and including all the creditors of the 
 firm and of the individual members 3 . Such a deed was 
 required to provide for separate as well as joint 
 creditors* unless there were no separate creditors 5 . 
 Consequently a deed made only with an insolvent's 
 partnership creditors was not binding on an individual 
 creditor 6 . The Eules are silent on this matter. 
 
 Quaere whether when there are partnership and 
 individual creditors there must be a consent of the 
 necessary number and value of each class 7 . 
 
 Section 13(1) appears to give a wide latitude as Time when 
 to the time When a proposal for a composition may be^ r °^ s e al 
 
 made. 
 'In re Simmons ex parte Allard (1881), 16 Oh. D. 505. 
 10 Ex parte Burrell in re Rolinson (1876), 1 Oh. 537; 45 L. J. Bank. 
 68. 
 
 1 In re Groom, England v. Provincial Assets Co., supra; In re and 
 ev parte Clark (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 426; 53 L. J. Q. B. 1063; 1 Mor. 
 143; and see sections 13(12), 61. 
 
 2 In re Andrews ex parte Barrow (1881), 18 Oh. D. 464; 50 L. J. 
 Ch. 821. 
 
 'In re Walker (1878) ,.2 O. A. R. 265; Gelinas v. Drew (1877), 3 
 Q. L. E. 361; In re Code and Crain (1879), 3 O. A. R. 555. 
 
 'Re Oarratt (1869), 28 U. C. Q. B. 266; Allan v. Garratt (1870), ' 
 30 U. C. Q. B. 165 ; MoKitrick v. Haley (1881), 46 U. C. Q. B. 246. 
 
 'Preston v. Hunton (1875), 37 TJ. C. Q. B. 177. 
 
 'Pigeon v. Martin (1875), 25 U. C. C. P. 233. 
 
 'Sanderson v Dixon (1878), 29 U. O. O. P. 377. There is no rule 
 covering such a case. 
 
216 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Motive of 
 those voting 
 on the 
 proposal. 
 
 section 13 made under the Act 8 . The Act makes no specific pro- 
 _ vision for advertisement in composition proceedings 
 if these take place before the making of an author- 
 ized assignment. As cases may arise where creditors' 
 names have been omitted from the list furnished to 
 the trustee, advertisement is necessary 9 . If the Court 
 considers the proofs tendered require investigation or 
 if for a large proportion of the debts shown no proofs 
 have been tendered, the Court will no doubt refuse to 
 approve the composition 10 . 
 
 The creditors who assent must be bona fide creditors 
 entitled to prove 1 and must assent in the bona fide 
 belief that it is in the interest of all creditors to do so ; 
 and not from some other motive 2 . Thus, if the assent 
 of a creditor whose consent is necessary to make up 
 the required majority is obtained by a promise made 
 not by the debtor, but by .a third party such as the 
 trustee to pay him his law costs, the composition will 
 not be affirmed 3 and it has been held under a former 
 English Act that where the numbers are sufficient 
 without reckoning those Whose assent has been im- 
 
 8 See English Act, 1914, ss. 14, 21. For a review of legislation and 
 the practice under The Insolvent Act of 1869, see Green v. 8wun (1872), 
 22 U. C. G. P. 307. In the United States of America compositions niay 
 be proposed only in bankruptcy proceedings actually commenced. Collier 
 on Bankruptcy, 11th edition, 1917, p. 311. It should be noted that 
 section 13(3) speaks of the " proved debts". See, however, Rule 106. 
 
 "See under the Act of 1875: Sanderson v. Dixon (187S), 29 
 U. C. C. P. 377, and see as to creditors residing at a distance, Lewis v. 
 Tudhope (1877), 27 U. C. C. P. 505, 520. 
 
 10 In re and ex parte Rogers (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 43S; 1 Mor. 159. 
 See Rule 106. 
 
 1 lewis v. Tudhope (1877), 27 U. C. C: P. 505, 520. See as to the 
 offence of making a false claim, section 92. See where a secured 
 creditor mentioned 'his security in his proof, and voted in respect of 
 his whole debt : In re Littler ex parte Manchester & Liverpool District 
 Banking Co. (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 249; 43 L. J. Bank. 73. It was 
 held in that case that as the resolutions for which the creditor voted 
 did not call for a surrender of the security of secured creditors, the 
 creditor might retain his security. See as to the right _ of a secured 
 creditor to revalue h ; s security: In re Morter ex parte Nichols (1897), 
 76 L. T. 532. As to an election to proceed with an action at law where 
 part of the debt was provable and part not, see In re Edwards ex parte 
 Bourn (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 673; 44 L. J. Bank. 25. There was no 
 election such as would prevent the creditor from continuing an action/ 
 where he had proved under an invalid composition : Allan v. Oarratt 
 (18701, 30 U. 0. Q. B. 165. 
 
 ■'In re McRue (1877), 1 O. A. R. 387. 
 
 8 S. O. 
 
Section 13 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 217 
 
 properly obtained, the Court will not approve the ■ 
 composition where any of the untainted signatures are 
 subsequent to the tainted ones; as the creditors who 
 signed subsequently may have been induced to do so 
 by seeing the signatures of the others*. A fortiori a 
 creditor may not appear to concur in a composition 
 and stipulate for a secret benefit for himself 5 even 
 though his secret benefit is promised in return for his 
 becoming surety for the payment of the composition 6 ; 
 for a composition is an agreement between the debtor 
 and each creditor that they are contracting on terms 
 of equality 7 . Nor may the creditor after the ap- 
 proval of the composition but before it is paid in full 
 accept payment in full of his debt even where he 
 agrees at the same time to give the. debtor fresh 
 credit 8 . But a deed may contain a clause stating that 
 the composition "shall not affect any mortgage, 
 hypothec, lien or collateral security held by any such 
 creditor as security for his debts." 9 And where 
 such a clause appears a creditor whose claim is secured 
 by mortgage is not bound to communicate that fact 
 to other creditors before executing the deed 10 . But 
 a creditor who, -in composition proceedings, holds 
 out to the other creditors that he is not a secured 
 creditor may afterwards be estopped from setting up 
 that he is a secured creditor. 1 It was held under 
 a former Canadian Act that where there has been no 
 statutory majority there is no discharge 2 . Creditors 
 
 'Phillips v. Dicas (1812), 15 East 248; Holland v. Palmer (1797), 
 1 B. & P. 95. 
 
 'Jackman v. Mitchell (1807), 13 Ves. 581; McKeican v. Sanderson 
 (1875). L. R. 20 Eq. 05: Sinclair v. Henderson (1864), 9 L. C. J. 306. 
 
 'Wood v. Barker (1865). L. R. 1 Eq. 139; 35 L. J. Ch. 276. 
 
 'Dauglish v. Tennent (1866), L. R. 2 Q. B. 49; 36 L. J. Q B. 10. 
 Contrast annulment cases, where each creditor is at liberty to make his 
 own bargain: In re McHenry, HcDermott v. Boyd (1894), 3 Ch. 365: 
 64 L. J. Oh. 13. 
 
 "In re Andrews em parte Barrow (1881), IS Ch. D. 464; 50 L. J. 
 Ch. 821. 
 
 * Henderson v. Macdonald (1873), 20 Or. 334; and see In re Stern 
 (1875), 37 IT. C. Q. B. 296, and Jackman v. Mitchell (1807), 13 Ves. 
 -581, 586. 
 
 10 Henderson, v. Macdonald, supra, but see In re Balbirnic ex parte 
 Jameson (1876), 3*011. D. 488; 45 L. J. Bank. 156. ~ 
 In re Baluirnie ex parte Jameson, supra. 
 
 'Lewisv. Tudhope (1877), 27 U. C. C. P. 505, 521; cf. Sanderson 
 1 Diaon (1878) . 29 U. C. C. P. 377, and see further as to formalities : 
 
218 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 — — — —who in order to give the debtor the benefit of section 
 13(9) have executed releases for their debts and 
 delivered them as escrows to take effect upon the 
 approval of the scheme by the Court, may not vote on 
 the scheme 3 . It is no fraud which will vitiate a com- 
 position for the debtor to make the composition for a 
 less amount than he might have made it for if pressed; 
 it would be otherwise if he induced the creditors to 
 accept a small composition by concealing his assets 4 . 
 
 . The composition approved by the Court must be the 
 
 same as that which the creditors accept 5 . If the credi- 
 tors have varied the proposal of the debtors the consent 
 of the debtors to the \ ariation must be shown 6 . 
 
 Report of the It is the duty of the trustee to report fully to the 
 
 trustee. Court 7 . Where in his opinion the proposal of the 
 debtor is reasonable and calculated to benefit the 
 creditors that will not justify him in not disclosing 
 facts or conduct on the part of the debtor which the 
 Court ought to have before it in order to apply the 
 provisions of this section 8 . The Court will tolerate 
 no interference with the trustee in the preparation of 
 his report 9 . In England the report of the official 
 receiver is prima facie evidence of the statements con- 
 tained in it 10 . The debtor's statement of affairs which 
 
 Allan v. Garratt (1870) , 30 U. C. Q. B. 165 ; as to the effect of a mis- 
 take, see Rooney v. Lyon (1877) . 40 TJ. C. Q. B. 366 ; affd. 2 0. A. R. 53, 
 Section 9(13) of The Insolvent Act of 1864, provided that a composition 
 obtained by fraud should be null and void. It was, therefore, possible 
 to allege in answer to a plea of discharge under the Act, that there was 
 a corrupt agreement between the debtor and some of the parties to the 
 deed: Thompson v. Rutherford (1868), 27 TJ. C. Q. B. 205, and see 
 Shaw v. M assie (1871), 21 U. C. C. P. 276. 
 
 "In re Barnes (1902), 86 L. T. 691; and see In re Pilling ex parte 
 Board of Trade (1903), 2 K. B. 50; 72 L. J. K. B. 392; In re Keet 
 (1905), 1 K. B. 278; 74 L. J. K. B. 694; 12 Mans. 235. 
 
 4 S7mmo v. M assie (1871), 21 U. O. C. P. 266. 
 
 'Lucas v. Martin (1888), 37 Ch. D. 597; 57 L. J. Ch. 261, and see 
 Rule 104. 
 
 "In re Richardson (1921), 1 0. B..R. 417; 19 0. W. N. 494 
 (Holmested, R.). 
 
 7 I« re and em parte Bottomley (1893), 10 Mor. 262; In re Richard- 
 son (1921) , 19 O. W. N. 494. 
 
 "In re and ex parte Bottomley, (1893), 10 Mor. 262. 
 
 °/m re and ex parte Bottomley, supra. 
 
 10 In re Wallace ex parte Campbell (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 213; 54 
 L. J. Q. B. 382 ; 2 Mor. 167 ; In re and ex parte Reed and Bowen (1886), 
 17. Q. B. D. 244; 55 L. J. Q. B. 244; 3 Mor. 90. See The Bankruptcy 
 Act, sections 60 (2) and 13(15). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 219 
 
 has been lodged with the trustee under section 13(2) Section 13 
 must be filed prior to the application to the court for — 
 approval". The trustee may apply in person for the 
 approval of the composition. He need not apply by 
 a solicitor 12 . 
 
 On an unopposed application to confirm a composi- 
 tion, the registrar must be satisfied that the required 
 majority of creditors has duly accepted the composi- 
 tion, that the terms are reasonable and calculated to 
 benefit the general body of creditors, and that no facts 
 have been proved which would justify the court in with- 
 holding its approval 1 . 
 
 Under sections 13(8) (9) (10) the court is to exercise Court may 
 a judicial discretion which will not be interfered with ap f prove°the 
 on appeal 2 unless the appeal court is clearly satisfied composition, 
 that it is wrong 3 . On appeal the court is entitled to 
 take into account facts which might have been but 
 were not before the registrar when he gave his deci- 
 sion*. All the facts must be considered in deciding 
 the question; and the fact that the creditors are in 
 favour of the proposal is but one of the facts to be 
 considered 5 . The court must not be unduly influenced 
 by that fact, 6 for the court itself having the duty of 
 saving careless creditors from the effect of their care- 
 lessness must be satisfied that the proposal is reason- 
 able and calculated to benefit the general body of 
 
 11 In re Richardson (1921), 1 C. B. R. 417; 19 O. W. N. 494 
 (Holmested, R.). Rule 97. 
 
 12 In re Shaw (1921), 1 C. B. R. 368; 19 O. W. N. 153 (Holme- 
 sted, R.). 
 
 1 In re Richardson (1921), 1 C. B. R. 417; 19 O. W. N. 494 
 (Holmested, R.) ; In re Rubin (1921), 1 C. B. R. 394 (Cordeau, R.) ; 
 In re Miller (1921) , 1 C. B. R. 396 (Lamarre, D.R.) . 
 
 "In re Wallace ex parte Campbell (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 213; 54 
 L. J. Q. B. 382 ; 2 Mor. 167. 
 
 'In re Rogers (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 438; 1 Mor. 159; In re and 
 em parte Reed and Bowen (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 244; 55 L. J. Q. B. 244; 
 3 Mor. 90; In re Staniar ex parte Smith (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 544; 5 
 Mor. 67; Ex parte Kearsley in re Genese (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 186; 56 
 L. J. Q. B. .220 ; 3 Mor. 274 ; Ex parte Merchant Banking Co. in re 
 Durham (1881), 16 Ch. D. 623; 50 L. J. Oh. 606. 
 
 'In re Burr ex parte Board of Trade (1892), 2 Q. B. 467, 472; 
 61 L. J. Q. B. 591 ; 9 Mor. 133. 
 
 "In re Burr ex parte Board of Trade (1892), 2 Q. B. 467, 473; 
 61 L. J. Q. b. 591 ; 9 Mor. 133. 
 
 «In re Wallace ex parte Campbell (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 213; 54 
 L. J. Q. B. 382 ; 2 Mor. 167. 
 
220 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 13 creditors 7 . The weight to be given to the opinion of 
 
 creditors will, no doubt, vary in different cases. 8 But 
 
 if the scheme is reasonable and calculated to benefit 
 
 the general body of creditors, as those phrases have 
 
 been judicially interpreted, and if the case is outside 
 
 the prohibitions in section 13(8) (9), the court will 
 
 generally approve. 9 
 
 Terms not In order to be reasonable the scheme must give the 
 
 orno nable creditors a greater advantage than they would have , 
 
 calculated in proceedings in bankruptcy 10 , though it is competent 
 
 to benefit the P , -, n . , ■ , --in, 
 
 general body ±or the scheme m certain cases to provide that par- 
 of creditors, ticular sections of the Act shall not apply 1 . Where 
 the alleged advantage consists in the withdrawal of 
 certain claims, satisfactory evidence of the amount of 
 the debts and the reason for their being given up will 
 have to be adduced before the court will approve 2 . It 
 is not a reasonable provision in a scheme that the com- 
 mittee of inspection shall determine the time when the 
 debtor shall be discharged, for this removes the matter 
 from the control of the court 3 , though a provisionjhat 
 the creditors shall give the debtor his discharge either 
 immediately or at some definite time, subject to the 
 approval of the court,, would be a proper provision 4 . 
 
 1 In re and ex parte Reed and Bowen (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 244; 55 
 I,. J. Q. B. 244 ; 3 Mor. 90. 
 
 "In re and ex parte Rogers (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 4:38 ; 1 Mor. 159; In 
 re Webb ex parte Board of Trade (1914) , 3 K. B. 387, 393 ; 83 L. J. £. B. 
 1386; 21 Mans. 169; In re and ex parte Flew (1905), 1 K.-B. 278, 284; 
 74 L. J. K. B. 284 ; 12 Mans. 1 ; In re Stanlar ex parte Smith (1888), 20 
 Q. B. D. 544 ; 5 Mor. 67. 
 
 9 See further notes to these sections infra. 
 
 la Ex parte Bischoffsheim in re Aylmer (1887), 19 Q.B.D. 33; 56 
 L.J.Q.B. 460 ; 4 Mor. 152. 
 
 1 Such as section 23 of the English Act of 1890 regarding the rate 
 of interest: In re Nepean ex parte Ramchund (1903), 1 K. B. 794; 72 
 L. J K. B. 407 ; 10 Mans. 156; and see In re AtMumney ex parte Wilson 
 (1898) , 2 Q.B. 547 ; 67 L.J.Q.B. 935. 
 
 2 In re Burr ex parte Board of Trade (1892), 2 Q. B. 467, 474; 
 61 L. J. Q. B. 591 ; 9 Mor. 133 ; In re Pilling ex parte Board of Trade 
 (1903) , 3 K. B. 50 ; 72 L. J. K. B 392 ; 10 Mans. 142 ; In re and ex parte 
 Flew (1905), 1 K.B. 278; 74 L.J.K.B. 284; 12 Mans. 1. 
 
 8 Ex parte and in re Clark (1884), 13 Q.BJX 426; 53 L.J.Q.B. 1063; 
 1 Mor. 143. 
 
 4 In re and c.v parte Clark, supra; In re Croom. England v. Provin- 
 cial Assets Co. (1891), 1 Ch. 695; 60 L. J. Ch. 373. The question may 
 yet be further litigated whether the Court should compel a dissentient 
 minority to accept a composition which gives one creditor an advantage 
 over the others. See In re Howe (1921). 20 O. W. N. 244; In re 
 Gardner (1921), 1 C. B. E. 424. 
 
THE BAXKRUPTCX ACT. 221 
 
 Assent might be refused if the composition had the Section 13 
 effect of injuring one class to the advantage of - 
 another 5 . 
 
 By section 58(5) the court is required to refuse the Cases in 
 discharge of a bankrupt where he has committed any^** e 
 offen'ce under the Act or any offence connected with required to 
 
 TGlUSG 
 
 his bankruptcy or assignment or the proceedings discharge, 
 thereunder, unless for special reasons the court other- 
 wise determines. Cases where the court would have 
 to refuse a discharge in order to guard the morality of 
 the trade will justify the court in refusing approval 
 of a scheme which would be reasonable as far as the 
 creditors were concerned and calculated to benefit the 
 general body of creditors . 
 
 The facts on proof of which the court is required to Facts on 
 refuse, suspend or attach conditions, to the discharge co U c r ^ the 
 of the debtor are referred to in section 58(5) and set required to 
 out in section 59. Where the composition provides pend or 
 the security mentioned by 13(9) and is otherwise ^^todis 1 - 1 
 unobjectionable, the court will not generally refuse to charge, 
 sanction the scheme merely on the ground that the 
 misconduct alleged is rash and hazardous speculation, 
 unless the speculations have been so wild or so con- 
 tinued or of such a character as to make it against 
 public policy that a man who might be described as a 
 confirmed gambler should get a scheme sanctioned at 
 all 7 . 
 
 But where facts have been proved on proof of which where thei 
 the court would be required either to refuse, suspend videsreason- 
 or attach conditions to the debtor 's discharge were he forX C pay- y 
 adjudged bankrupt, the court has no discretion to me ntofnot 
 approve the scheme unless it provides the reasonable fifty cents on 
 security required by section 13 (9) 8 ; and even though the dollar - 
 
 "In re Code and Cain (1879), 3 O. A. R. 555. 
 
 'In re and e.n parte Reed and Bowen (188G), 17 Q. B. D. 244, 251 ; 
 55 L.J.Q.B. 244 ; 3 Mor. 90. 
 
 ' In re E. A. B. (1902), 1 K. B. 457 ; 71 L. J. K. B. 356; 9 Mans. 
 105; In re Burr ex parte Board of Trade (1892), 2 Q. B. 467. 474; 51 
 I*. J. Q. B. 591 ; 9 Mor. 133 ; Ex parte Merchant Banking Co. in re Durham 
 (1881), 16 Ch. D. 623; 50 L.J. Ch. 606; In re and ex parte Bottomley 
 (1893), 10 Mor. 262; In re Barlow ex parte Thornier (1886), 3 Mor. 
 304; In re and ex parte MeTear (18S8), 5 Mor. 182. 
 
 'In re Well eon parte Board of Trade (1914), 3 K. B. 387; 83 
 L. J. K. B. 1386; 21 Mans. 169. 
 
222 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 13 there is reasonable security for the payment the court 
 is not bound to approve the scheme, but has a discre- 
 tion in the matter 9 . The fact that the creditors wish 
 for it, or (in England) that the official receiver is 
 satisfied, are only two of the facts to be considered 10 . 
 The court has to form its own conclusion on all the 
 circumstances 1 . The clause "reasonable security for, 
 payment," means reasonable security for payment 
 now or within a short time, not at a distant time such 
 as a year hence 2 . Seasonable security does not mean 
 absolutely good security, but a . reasonably good 
 security under which the requisite amount of money 
 could probably be recovered 3 . Debts provable in 
 13(9') mean debts provable at the moment when the 
 scheme comes up for approval, not at the date of the 
 receiving order. Thus debts which have been with- 
 drawn and released after the receiving, order but 
 before the time of approval of the composition are not 
 to be reckoned 4 , at least where absolutely and finally 
 released, that is not released as part of the scheme 6 .- 
 other cases The court will not refuse its sanction to a scheme 
 CwTr'Tmay 11 * m erely on the ground that by act of a third party and 
 approve or without the knowledge of the debtor certain creditors 
 withdrew their debts on terms which gave them an 
 advantage over creditors 6 . The case would be differ- 
 ent if the arrangement were made by the debtor 7 . It 
 
 'In re Burr ex parte Board of Trade (1892), 2 Q. B. 467; 51 
 L. J. Q. B. 591 ; 9 Mor. 133. 
 
 10 In re Webb ex parte Board of- Trade, supra. 
 
 *In re Burr ex parte Board of Trade (1892), 2 Q. B. 467, 473; 51 
 L. J. Q. B. 591; 9 Mor. 133. 
 
 "In re and ex parte Fame (1891), W. N. 208. 
 
 8 In re Webb ex parte Board of Trade, supra; In re and ex parte 
 Bottomley (1893). 10 Mor. 262. 
 
 'In re E. A. B. (1902), 1 K. B. 457; 71 L. J. K. B. 356; 9 Mans. 
 105. 
 
 5 In re Pilling ex parte Board of Trade (1903), 2 K. B. 50, 59; 72 
 L. J. K. B. 392 ; 10 Mans. 142 ; and see In re Burr ex parte Board 
 of Trade (1892), 2 Q. B. 467, 477; 51 L. J. Q. B. 591; 9 Mor. 133. 
 See generally as to conditional releases in In re E. A. B., supra ; In re 
 Baines (1902), 86 L. T. 691; In re Pilling ex parte Board of Trade, 
 supra; In re and ex parte Flew (1905) , 1 K. B. 278 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 280 ; 
 12 Mans. 1. 
 
 'In re E. A. B. (1902), 1 K. B. 457; 71 L. J. K. B. 356; 9 Mans. 
 105. 
 
 7 In re Pilling ex parte Board of Trade (1903), 2 K. B. 50, 59; 72 
 L. J. K. B. 392 ; 10 Mans. 142. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 223 
 
 has also been said that the court should regard the Section 13 
 moral aspect of the case and not give its approval - 
 where the composition is intended to prevent the 
 investigation of discreditable or possibly fraudulent 
 transactions 8 . It is left to the discretion of the court 
 when a composition appears reasonable to determine 
 whether the conduct of the debtor is such as to make 
 it more expedient in the interest of the public or of 
 commercial morality to punish him than to consult 
 only the interest of the creditors 9 . 
 
 In England when the court refuses to approve of a Refusal 
 composition an immediate adjudication of bankruptcy a^judfcation 
 will be made against the debtor only in exceptional 
 circumstances 10 . 
 
 By section 13(12) an approval of the composition when the 
 by the court binds the dissentient creditors 1 so far as improved 
 relates to debts provable under the Act. Section 44i t . bind j5 
 defines what debts are provable under the Act 2 . creditors. 
 
 Provided he carries out the terms of the composi- Differences 
 tion as approved by the court the debtor is, as has been discharge 1 
 already pointed out, practically in the same position and the , . 
 as if he had received his discharge. Section 86 pro- composition, 
 vides that save as provided in the Act the effect of 
 a composition or scheme of arrangement shall bind 
 
 "Ex parte Strawbridge in re Hickman (1883), 25 Oh. D. 266; 53 
 L. J. Ch. 323. 
 
 "Ex parte Kearsley in re Genese (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 168; 56 L. J. 
 Q. B. 220; 3 Mor. 274; Ex parte Strawbridge m re Hickman (1883), 25 
 Ch. D. 266; 53 L. J. Ch. 323; In re and ex parte Bottomley (1893), 
 10 Mor. 262; In re Barlow ex parte Thornier (1886), 3 Mor. 304; In 
 re and, ex parte McTear (1888), 5 Mot. 182. 
 
 10 In re and ex parte Flew (1905) , 1 K. B. 278 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 284 ; 
 12 M'ans. 1. 
 
 1 It is the intention that all creditors except those referred to in 
 section 13(19), shall be bound and shall also be entitled to the benefits 
 under the scheme. See per Gwynne, J., in Shaw v. Massie (1871) , 27 
 U. C. C. P. 266, 269. The -creditors to benefit are not merely those 
 who first agreed to the proposal. Therefore a secured creditor who makes 
 no claim for a year and then overvalues his security is ent : tled to revalue 
 it and prove for the balance: In re Morter ex parte Niclwls (1897), 76 
 L- T. 532. In that ease the trustees of the scheme who had given 
 promissory notes to secure the composition of 7 shillings 6 pence in the 
 pound could not be caEed on by the secured creditor to make up the 
 two dividends on the composition which he had lost by his delay. 
 
 2 See under previous Insolvent Acts as to costs incurred subse- 
 quently to the approval of the scheme: Tate v. Charlebois (1870), 
 14 L. C. J. 215, and see as to an execution on a judgment obtained 
 after that date: In re McMillan (1877), 13 U. C. L. J. 105. 
 
224 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 13 the Crown. There are, however, certain differences 
 "between section 13(12) and section 61 which deals 
 with discharges 3 . Alimentary debts 4 , for example, are 
 not mentioned in section 61. On the other hand certain 
 debts not mentioned in 13(12') are not released by an 
 order of discharge. These include debts or liabilities 
 incurred by means of a fraudulent breach of trust. 
 By 13(19) the rights of the creditor with respect to 
 such a debt are not taken away by the composition 
 unless he assents to the composition, which may be done 
 by proving for and accepting the composition 5 . The 
 acceptance of a composition does not release third 
 parties such as sureties who would not be released by 
 an order of discharge of the bankrupt 6 . The provi- 
 sions of the Act must be strictly complied with or 
 dissentient creditors will not be bound. Thus where 
 there had not been the statutory majority it was held 
 under a previous Canadian Act that there was no dis- 
 charge 7 . A debtor may in some cases be estopped from 
 setting up a composition 9 . 
 Power to The power of adjudication given by section 13(14) 
 
 wheifdefauit ' s discretionary and will not be exercised if the court 
 is made. can see plainly that there are no other assets which the 
 creditors can get hold of, and that the creditors will 
 not be in a better position if there is an adjudication. 
 But the court will- exercise the power if there is only a 
 probability that the creditors will gain by an adjudica- 
 tion . The court can adjudge the debtor bankrupt, 
 
 3 Under the Act of 1883. the composition was binding on all 
 creditors as far as related 1 to debts and liabilities which would be 
 released by an order of discharge : Flint v. Barnard (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 
 90 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 83. 
 
 4 Defined, 2(6). 
 
 Hn re Sewell, White v. Sewell (1909), 1 Oh. 806; 78 L. J. Ch. 432; 
 16 Mans. 113. See where there was an election to proceed at law and 
 not to claim a composition in respect of what might have been recovered 
 in an action: In re Edwards ex parte Baum (1874), L. R. 9th 673; 
 44 L. J. Bank. 25. See also as to election Allan v. Jarratt (1870), 30 
 U. C. Q. B. 165. 
 
 "13(17). 
 
 'Lewis v. Tudhope (1877), 27 U. C. C. P. 505, 521; Gf. Sanderson 
 v. Dixon (1878), 29 U. C. C. P. 377, as to the effect of a mistake, see 
 Rooney v. Lyon (1877), 40 U. C. Q. B. 366; affd. 2 O. A. R. 53. 
 
 8 Pigeon v. Martin (1875), 25 U. C. C. P. 233. 
 
 • In re and ex parte Moon (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 669 ; 56 L. J- Q. B. 
 496 ; 4 Mor. 263. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 225 
 
 make a receiving order against Mm, and annul the Section 13 
 composition when the debtor without any fraud over- - 
 estimated the value of the assets and misled the credi- 
 tors in consequence of which the creditors receive a 
 less dividend than the debtor led them to expect 10 . 
 
 Sewible where an adjudication and a receiving No relation 
 order are made under 13 (14) there is no relation back f trustee! e 
 of the title of the trustee 1 . 
 
 An order under this section annulling a composi- Effect on 
 tion, adjudicating a debtor bankrupt and making a surety ' 
 receiving order against him, discharges a surety who 
 has given security for the payment of the composi- 
 tion 2 . 
 
 Section 13(15) has not been as carefully drawn as Effect of 
 certain other sections in the Act. It is the result of an see ' 
 •attempt to compress subsections 17 and 18 of section 
 16 of the English Act into one subsection. Under the 
 English Act it is only certain portions of the Act which 
 extend to compositions, extensions and schemes 3 . Ex- 
 tremely wide as the terms of this paragraph appear to 
 be intended to be, it will not give the parties power to 
 confer on the court a jurisdiction which it does not 
 otherwise possess 4 . Beading 13(15) and 25(1) together 
 it appears that the property of the debtor which passes 
 to the trustee under a scheme is, in the absence of words 
 indicating a contrary intention, all the property of the 
 debtor at the date of the acceptance of the scheme 
 and up to the date of its approval by the court 5 . 
 
 19 In re and ex parte Moon (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 669; 56 L. J. Q. B. 
 496; 4 Mor. 263 ; In re Webster ex parte Foster (1886), 3 Mor. 132. 
 
 x In re UcHenry ex parte McDermott (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 580; 36 
 W. B, 725. 
 
 2 Walton v. Cook (1888), 40 Ch. D. 325 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 180. Contrast 
 section 13(17). 
 
 "Compare English section 16(17) (18). See also English cases on 
 previous Acts: Ex parte Whinney in re Grant (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 238; 
 55 L. J. Q. B. 369; 3 Mor. 118, the right to examine a debtor: Ex 
 parte Bischoffsheim in re Aylmer (1887) , 19 Q. B. D. 33 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 
 460 ; 4 Mor. 152, on provisions in a composition for the discharge of the 
 debtor. 
 
 'Ex parte Bischoffsheim m re Aylmer (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 258; 
 57 L. J. Q. B. 168. 
 
 s In re Croom. England v. Provincial Assets Go. (1891), 1 Ch. 695; 
 60 L. ji. Ch. 373. 
 
 B.c— 15 
 
226 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section i3A Section 13(17) preserves the liability of third 
 
 See. 13(17). parties such as sureties. 8 
 
 A discharge of a debtor under a composition is 
 much the same as a discharge in bankruptcy by opera- 
 tion of law ; and the consent of a creditor under the 
 Act is not of the same effect as a voluntary consent to 
 the discharge of a debtor. If, therefore, the debtor 
 being an acceptor of a bill of. exchange is discharged 
 under a composition he is discharged by operation of 
 law and the drawer is not thereby discharged 7 . 
 
 Sec. 13(18). The granting of a bankrupt's application for the 
 
 approval of a composition and the annulment of the 
 adjudication is entirely within the discretion of the 
 court. The creditors are entitled to consideration, but 
 the conduct of the debtor must also be considered, and 
 where it is in the interest of the public and of com- 
 mercial morality that the bankruptcy should not be 
 annulled, the proposed composition will not be 
 approved even though it would have been advantage- 
 ous to the creditors 8 . 
 
 Sec. 13(19). Section 13(19) must be distinguished from section 
 13(17) which preserves the liabilities of third parties. 
 See also notes to section 13(12). 
 
 Stay of 
 proceedings 
 pending 
 consideration 
 of proposal 
 of composi- 
 tion, exten- 
 sion or 
 scheme of 
 arrangement. 
 
 13a. (1) The court, at any time after a debtor 
 has required an authorized trustee to con- 
 vene a meeting of creditors to consider a pro- 
 posal of a composition, extension or scheme 
 of arrangement, may, on the ex parte appli- 
 cation of the trustee and his affidavit disclos- 
 ing the circumstances and stating his belief 
 that the success of the intended efforts to 
 bring into effect a composition, extension of 
 time for payment, or scheme of arrangement 
 
 'In re Sewell, White v. Sewell (1909), 1 Oh. 806; 16 Mans. 113; 
 see section 31(3) ; as to the discharge of the debtor see 13(19). 
 
 'In re and ex parte Jacobs (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 211; 44 L. J. 
 Bank. 34. See as to the dissolution of a company, payment of interest 
 on whose debentures had been guaranteed: In re Fitzgeorge em parte 
 Rolson (1905), 1 K. B. 462; 74 L. J. K. B. 322; 12 Mans. 14. See 
 under The Insolvent Act of 1875 ; Fowler v. Perrin, 16 U. C. C. P. <»S , 
 Martin v. Brummell 4 U. O. P. R. 229 ; 4 V. C. L. J. N. S. 137 ; In re 
 Stern. 37 U. C. Q. B. 296. ' _ _ „ aR 
 
 * In re and ex parte Beer (1903), 1 K. B. 628; 72 L. J. K. B. dob, 
 and see notes to section 62. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 227 
 
 of the debtor's affairs and obligations will be section 13a 
 imperilled unless, pending consideration by - 
 the creditors of the proposal made or to be 
 made the existing conditions as to litigation 
 of claims against the debtor is preserved, 
 order that any action, execution or other 
 proceeding against the person or property 
 of the debtor pending in any court other than 
 the court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy 
 shall stand stayed until the last mentioned 
 court, upon or before report made of the 
 result of the dealings between the debtor and 
 his creditors, shall otherwise order, where- 
 upon such action, execution or other pro- 
 ceeding shall stand stayed accordingly ; and 
 the court in which any such proceedings are 
 pending may likewise, on like application 
 and proof, stay such proceedings until the 
 court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy 
 shall otherwise order. 
 (2) On the making of an authorized assignment Proceedings 
 or an order approving, a proposal of a com- mSinV'of 
 position, extension or scheme of arrange- assignment 
 ment every such action, execution or other approving 
 proceeding for the recovery of a debt prov- ^°ept as to 
 able in authorized assignment or composi- secured 
 
 ■ • , i _c a creditors. 
 
 tion, extension or scheme or arrangement, 
 proceedings under this Act shall, subject to 
 the rights of secured creditors to realize or 
 otherwise " deal with their securities stand 
 stayed unless and until the court shall, on 
 such terms as it may think just, otherwise 
 order. 
 
 Cross References Act: Composition, extension or scheme 13 : 
 authorized assignment 9 ; stay of proceedings on making of receiving 
 order, 6(1), 7. 
 
 Section 13a was first enacted, by section 12 of The 
 Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921. Its provisions 
 are not as wide as those with respect to receiving 
 orders ; for while 13a substantially copies section 7, it 
 does not contain any provisions similar to those in 
 
228 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT; 
 
 section 13A section 6(1). That section provides, that after the 
 making of a receiving order no creditor other, than a 
 secured creditor shall have any remedy against the 
 property or person of the debtor or shall commence 
 any action unless with the leave of the court. 
 
 Before the enactment of section 13a, the court on 
 application of the trustee and inspectors, no creditor 
 objecting, authorized the payment of the plaintiff's 
 costs in an action brought against the debtor after an 
 authorized assignment had been made 1 . 
 
 The rights of secured creditors are preserved in 
 subsection 2 of this section ; but no mention is made of 
 secured creditors in subsection 1. Different considera- 
 tions may, however, apply where the court is asked 
 under subsection 1 to stay proceedings by secured 
 creditors from those applicable in the case of proceed- 
 ings by unsecured creditors. 
 
 The rights of secured creditors are further pre- 
 served by section 10. Under that section an assign- 
 ment only vests the property subject to the rights of 
 secured creditors ; therefore in the case of mortgaged 
 property the trustee takes only what the debtor owned, 
 namely, the equity of redemption in the property 2 . 
 
 In mechanics' lien proceedings the claimant is a 
 secured creditor under his lien ; but it is customary for 
 the lienholder to seek a personal - judgment for the 
 amount of his claim which he can enforce in the event 
 of his lien not realizing the full amount which he is 
 entitled to be paid. While it may be that section 13a 
 does hot require the leave of the court to the com- 
 mencement of mechanics' lien proceedings, leave of 
 the .court will now probably be required where the lien- 
 holder is seeking to enforce his claim to a personal 
 judgment 3 . 
 
 There was nothing in The Insolvent Acts of 
 
 »/n re Prima Skirt Co., Ltd. (1921), 1 C. B. R. 394 (Panneton, 
 J.) . In this case the estate had Obtained the benefit of the attachment 
 made by the plaintiffs. The inspectors and trustee may have been acting 
 under section 20(1) (g) or 20(1) (i). . 
 
 'White & Company v. The " Iona" (1921), 1 C. B. R. 41& 
 (I-Ioddns, L.J.). ■ • _ vj 
 
 'See In re Rockland Chocolate and Cocoa Co., Ltd. (1921), 1 C. o. 
 R. 452 (Orde, J.), a decision prior to the enactment of this section. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY AUT. 229 
 
 1869 or 1875 to take away the right of a creditor Section 13A 
 to sue a debtor, who had made an assignment 
 or against whom a writ of attachment had been 
 issued; and a debtor who was arrested on a capias 
 ad respondendum after assignment, by a creditor who 
 had proved on his estate, was said to have no remedy 
 but an application to the Judge in Insolvency for dis- 
 charge from custody under the 145th section of the Act 
 of 1869*. The general rule under the old English statutes 
 was that a creditor might not prove unless he stayed 
 bis action, but it was also a well established rule that 
 a creditor who had proved and had received dividends 
 was not held to have made his election; but might 
 refund the dividends and proceed at law 5 . Hagarty, 
 C.J.O., in Mason v. Macdonald*, expressed the opinion 
 that the law was similar under The Insolvent Act of 
 1869, saying: "It would seem, therefore, that at all 
 events before the 49th G-eo. III., and under our statute, 
 the fact of having proved a claim in bankruptcy was 
 not necessarily a bar to an action at law for the same 
 claim; subject, of course, to the refunding of any 
 dividend received, and to the possible expunging of the 
 proof 7 . 
 
 * Began v. Jones (1874), 2 Pugs. 290; and see Beaudin v. Roy 
 (1873), 20 L. C. J. 308; 5 Rev. Leg. 232; Stevenson v. McOwan 
 (1867), 3 L. C. L. J. 38; Robertson v. Bale (1S77), 21 L. C. J. 38; 
 see The Insolvent Act, 1875, sections 39 and 90. 
 
 'Ex parte Capot (1739), 1 Atk. 219; Ex parte White (1792), 2 
 Ves. Jr. 9. 
 
 e (1880), 45 TJ. C. Q. B. 113, 124, 125. 
 
 ' See also Baldwin v. Peterman (1866) , 16 U. C. C. P. 310 ; 2 U. 
 C. L. J. N. S. 128; Thome v. Torrance (1866), 16 U. C. C. P. 445; 
 (1868), 18 IT C. C. P 29, and contrast Archibald v. Haldan (1870), 30 
 U. C. Q. B. 30, on section 50 of the Act of 1869. 
 
230 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 PART III. 
 Trustees and Administration of Property. 
 
 Section 14 
 
 Appointment 
 of trustees. 
 
 Limited 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 Application. 
 
 General 
 security to 
 be given by 
 trustee. 
 
 Appointment of Trustees. 
 
 14 (1) The Governor in Council may, upon 
 application made to the Secretary of 
 State of Canada, appoint sufficient fit and 
 qualified persons to be trustees in bank- 
 ruptcy and under authorized assignments 
 and in proceedings by insolvent debtors 
 to secure compositions, extensions and 
 arrangements under this Act. 
 
 (2) Every such trustee shall be appointed with 
 authority limited territorially to the whole 
 or part of some one or more bankruptcy 
 districts or divisions but he shall, for the 
 purpose of obtaining possession of, and 
 realizing upon, the assets of a bankrupt or 
 authorized assignor of whom he is trustee, 
 have"power to act as such anywhere. Trus- 
 tees appointed pursuant to this section are 
 in this Act referred to as "authorized trus- 
 tees." 
 
 (3) Every person who applies to be appointed 
 an authorized trustee shall state in his 
 application full particulars of his qualifica- 
 tions, ability and previous business experi- 
 ence. 
 
 (4) No authorized trustee shall accept any 
 assignment or trust or execute any duties 
 under this Act unless and until he has given 
 security to the satisfaction of the Governor 
 in Council, by bond or otherwise, executed to 
 his Majesty as represented by such depart- 
 mental officer as may be designated by the 
 Governor in Council, for due accounting 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 231 
 
 and for payment over and transfer of all section u 
 moneys and property received by him as 
 such trustee. If the security required is 
 provided in cash the trustee shall be entitled 
 to be paid thereon such interest as may be 
 prescribed by General Rules. 
 
 (5) Such departmental officer shall be a special special 
 trustee for the creditors and for the estate. trustee - 
 
 (6) The amount of such security shall not, at security. 
 any. time, be less than ten thousand dollars. 
 
 (7) The said bond shall be kept in force by the security to 
 trustee until such time as the appointment force** m 
 of the trustee is revoked or until he resign 
 
 such appointment, and until the Governor in 
 Council is satisfied that all moneys and pro- 
 perties received by the trustee have been 
 duly accounted for and paid over to the 
 parties entitled thereto, whereupon such 
 bond shall be. released and. discharged. 
 
 (8) If a majority of the creditors present at any Additional 
 meeting duly called require the trustee to^gfvenby 
 provide further security the trustee shall, trustee. 
 within thirty days after the making of the 
 receiving order or authorized assignment, or 
 forthwith if first required after the elapse of 
 
 such period, give security by bond or other- 
 wise to the registrar of the court in the bank- 
 ruptcy district or division of the debtor's 
 locality in the amount required by the credi- 
 tors, for the due accounting and payment 
 over and transfer of all property received 
 or to be received by the trustee as such in 
 respect of the estate of the debtor. The 
 expense incident to the furnishing of such 
 security may be charged by the trustee to the 
 estate of the debtor. 
 
 (9) Should the trustee be unable or fail to give Meeting to 
 the security required, in the manner and security not 
 within the time hereinbefore provided, he glven - 
 shall within ten days from the expiration of 
 
 the said thirty days, by notice in writing, 
 
232 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 14 
 
 New trustee 
 appointed. 
 
 convene a meeting of creditors for the pur- 
 pose of appointing a new authorized trustee, 
 and should he neglect or refuse to call such 
 meeting, he shall be guilty of an offence and 
 subject to the penalties provided by this Act. 
 (10) In case the trustee fails to give the secu- 
 rity provided by this section and a new trus- 
 tee is not appointed by the creditors, the 
 court may, on the application of any 
 creditor, appoint from among the available 
 authorized trustees a new trustee. 
 
 Cross References Act: Trustee defined,' 2(/;) ; districts and 
 divisions, 64(5) ; trustees under R. O., 6(2) ; under A. A., 9; under 
 C. E. or S., 13(1) (c) ; proceedings in what court, 4(4) (11) ; jurisdic- 
 tion of courts, 63(1) ; courts auxiliary to one another, 71(2); new 
 trustee, 15 ; trustee not bound to act, 15(3) ; official name of trustee, 16; 
 duties and powers of trustee, 17 to 24 ; discharge of, 41 ; penalty for 
 not providing bond, 96(6) ; or calling meeting, 96(c) ; defects or irregu- 
 larity in apointment of trustees not to vitiate acts done in good faith, 
 84(2) ; remuneration of trustee, 40; resolution of creditors, 2(jff), 2 (a) ; 
 42(14) as to whether trustee may vote, 42(17) (19) ; the Act to be 
 administered by the Minister of Justice, 99. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Trustee defined, 2 (1) ; discharge of, 
 107 to 110 ; interest on deposit, 147 ; applications to court 4, 14 to 19. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Bond to registrar under section 14(8), 
 F. 36 ; notice of meeting to appoint new trustee 32 ; resolution to 
 appoint or substitute another authorized trustee, 33 ; application for dis- 
 charge, 42 ; affidavit verifying application, 43 ; order discharging auth- 
 orized trustee, 44. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: Canadian Acts 1875, ss. 27, 28, 29 ; 1865, 
 ss. 5. 6. Provincial Assignments Acts, see B. S. O. 1914, c. 134, s. 7. 
 
 Analysis op Notes. 
 
 W'ho miay be a trustee. 
 
 Application to Secretary of State. 
 
 Notice of appointment. 
 
 Limited, jurisdiction. 
 
 Security required by section 14(4). 
 
 Additional security under section 14(8). 
 
 Creditors may resolve to dispense w'th further security. 
 
 Penalties for breach of sections 14(9) (10). 
 
 Section 14(8) is in the form in which it was enacted 
 by section 15 of The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 
 1921 10 . 
 
 10 The previous seGtion read : — 
 
 14. (8) Unless the creditors, either at the first meeting, or at a 
 meeting convened by notice to all the known creditors, resolve to dis- 
 pense with further security, the trustee shall give security by bond or 
 otherwise to the registrar of the Court in the bankruptcy district or 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 233 
 
 The practice before' the amendment of section 2(aa) Section 14 
 in 1921 was to appoint either individuals or companies — 
 as trustees under The Bankruptcy Act 11 . 
 
 Application should be made to the Secretary of Application 
 State of Canada by letter 1 . $ ttStL** 1 * 
 
 When appointment is made the applicant will be Notice of 
 
 appointment, 
 division of the debtor's locality, in an amount satisfactory to' the regis- 
 trar, for the due accounting and payment over and transfer of all moneys 
 and properties received or to be received by him as such trustee in 
 respect of the estate of such debtor, and such security shall be given 
 within thirty days of the date of the receiving order or the making of 
 the assignment. The expense incident to the furnishing of such security 
 may be charged by the trustee to the estate of the debtor. " 
 
 ""Person" is denned in section 2(ao). A company could not 
 be an assignee under The British Columbia, Creditor's Trust Deed Act : 
 Colonial Development Company v. Beach (1913), 19 B. C. R. 237. 
 
 "The form of letter is as follows: — 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 (Place and date) 
 The Right Honourable, 
 
 The Secretary of State of Canada, 
 OTTAWA. 
 
 SiE: I have the honour to hereby make application for appointment 
 as an authorized Trustee under section 14 of The Bankruptcy . Act, 
 chapter 36, 9-10 Geo. V. I subjoin a statement of my qualifications 
 for such appointment. 
 
 Name in full 
 
 Address or place of 'business 
 
 Profession 
 
 Where practised 
 
 Qualifications and experience 
 
 References 
 
 * Surety Company 
 
 I have the honour to be, sir, 
 
 Tour obedient servant, 
 Signature . . . . 
 
 * The Bond under section 14 of the Act is not required to be filed 
 unless and until appointment is made. 
 
234 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Limited 
 jurisdiction 
 
 Security 
 required by 
 sec. 14(4). 
 
 Section 14 notified to this effect by letter from the Secretary of 
 State. The names and addresses of persons appointed 
 to be authorized trustees appear from time to time in 
 the Canada Gazette as appointments are made. 
 
 The authority of the trustee is limited territorially. 
 The same principle of limited jurisdiction was in 
 previous Canadian Acts. It is a principle which occa- 
 sionally causes difficulty 2 . 
 
 If the applicant proposes to furnish a bond for the 
 general security required by section 14(4), he should 
 give in his letter of application to the Secretary of 
 State the name of the surety company which he pro- 
 poses should furnish the bond 3 . The bond need not 
 accompany the application, . not being required until 
 appointment is made. 
 
 2 See on the Act of 1864 : Johnston v. Barker (1S69) , 20 TJ. C. 0. P. 
 228. 
 
 3 The names of Surety Companies eligible to furnish bonds to trus- 
 tees under The Bankruptcy Act, as of the date of going to press are : — 
 Alliance Assurance Company, 'Limited, T. D. Belfield, Chief Agent, 
 
 Montreal. 
 
 The Canada Accident & Fire Assurance Company, T. H. Hudson, 
 Manager, Montreal. 
 
 The Canadian Surety Company, Wm. H. Hall, General Manager, Toronto. 
 
 The Dominion Gresham Guarantee & Casualty Company, R.- Welch, 
 General Manager, Montreal. 
 
 The Dominion of Canada Guarantee & Accident Insurance Company, 
 Charles A. Withers, Manager, Toronto. 
 
 The Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited, C. W. I. 
 Woodland, Chief Agent, Montreal. 
 
 The General Accident Assurance Company of Canada, T. H. Hall, Gen- 
 eral Manager. Toronto. 
 
 The Globe Indemnity Company of Canada, John Elmo, General Manager, 
 Montreal. 
 
 The' Guarantee Company of North America, Henry E. Rawlings, Man- 
 aging Director, Montreal. 
 
 The Guardian Insurance Company of Canada, H. M. Lambert, Man- 
 aging Director, Montreal. 
 
 The Imperial Guarantee & Accident Insurance Company of Canada, E. 
 Willans, Managing Director, Toronto. 
 
 London Guarantee & Accident Company, Limited, Geo. Weir, Chief 
 Agent, Toronto. 
 
 The London & Lancashire Guarantee & Accident Company of Canada, 
 Alexander MacLean, Manager, Toronto. 
 
 The Northern Assurance Company, Limited, G. E. Moberly, Chief 
 Agent, Montreal. 
 
 The Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corporation, Limited, W. T. Perry, 
 Chief Agent, Toronto. 
 
 Railway Passengers Assurance Company, Frank H. Russell, Chief Agent, 
 Toronto. 
 
 Scottish Metropolitan Assurance Company, Limited, Alexander Bissett, 
 Chief Agent, Montreal. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 235 
 
 The amount of the security required by section 14 Section 14 
 (4) has been fixed at $15,000*. The bond is to be exe- 
 cuted. to Thomas Mulvey, Under-Secretary of State 5 . 
 
 4 See P. C. 1489' : Certified copy of a Report of the Committee 
 of the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor-General 
 on the 5th July, 1920. 
 
 The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, 
 dated 24th June, 1920, from the Secretary of State, submitting that 
 persons appointed authorized Trustees under section 14 of The Bankruptcy 
 Act, are required to furnish security to the amount of at least $10,000, 
 and to execute a bond in favour of a Departmental Officer to be 
 designated in guarantee for a due discharge of their duties. 
 
 The Minister, therefore, recommends that the attached form of 
 bond to be furnished by authorized Trustees appointed under section 14 
 of The Bankruptcy Act, be approved 1 . 
 
 The Minister further recommends upon due consideration of the 
 responsibility involved, that the amount of security to be furnished shall 
 be fixed at $15,000, and that in accordance with sub-section 4 of 
 section 14 of The Bankruptcy Act, Thomas Mulvey, Under-Secretary of 
 State and Deputy Registrar-General of Canada, be designated as the 
 officer to whom the bond shall be executed on behalf of His Majesty. 
 
 The Committee concur in the foregoing recommendations and submit 
 the same for approval. 
 
 (Sgd.) Rodolphe Boudreau, 
 
 Clerk of the Privy Council. 
 The Right Honourable, 
 
 The Secretary of State. 
 
 5 P. 0. 1489, supra. The approved form of Bond is as follows: — 
 
 CANADA, 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 Know all men by these presents that we 
 
 of the of 
 
 in the Province of 
 
 hereinafter called the Principal, and 
 
 hereinafter called the Surety, are jointly and severally bound unto our 
 Sovereign Lord the King, His Heirs and Successors, represented by 
 Thomas Mulvey, Under-Secretary of State, in the sum of law- 
 ful money of Canada to be paid to our Sovereign Lord the K ; n?, His 
 Heirs and Successors, represented as aforesaid, for which payment well 
 and faithfully to be made, we bind ourselves and each and every of our 
 respective heirs executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly 
 and severally firmly by these presents. 
 
 Sealed with our respective seals, and dated at the 
 
 of 
 
 in the province of this 
 
 day of 192 
 
 Whereas the Principal has applied to be appointed an authorized 
 trustee under " The Bankruptcy Act," and when so appointed will be 
 authorized and empowered to act as an authorized trustee in bankruptcy 
 and under authorized assignments, and in proceedings by insolvent 
 debtors to secure compositions, extensions and arrangements under the 
 said Act, and this bond is given in pursuance of the said Act and amend- 
 ments thereto. 
 
 Now the condition of this obligation is such that upon the granting 
 of such appointment, the said Principal shall, if he acts as an authorized 
 
236 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 14 Moneys or securities may be deposited with the Secre- 
 tary of State in lieu of a bond 6 . 
 
 trustee under the said Act, duly account for and pay over and transfer 
 to the parties entitled thereto all moneys and properties received by him 
 as such authorized trustee and shall faithfully perform his duties as such 
 authorized trustee, then this obligation shall be void and of no effect, but 
 otherwise shall be and remain in* full force and virtue. 
 
 The surety agrees to pay any and all claims under this bond within 
 sixty days after proof of claim shall have been furnished. 
 
 Provided always that if the surety shall at any time give three 
 calendar months' notice in writing to the Principal and to the 'Secretary 
 of State of Canada, for the time being, of its intention to put an end to 
 the suretyship hereby entered into, then this bond and all accruing 
 responsibility on its part and of its funds and property shall from and 
 after the last day of such three calendar months aforesaid cease and 
 determine in so far as concerns any acts or deeds' of the principal sub- 
 sequent to such determination, remaining liable, however, hereon for all 
 or any deeds, acts or defaults done or committed by "the Principal as 
 authorized trustee ,as aforesaid from the date of this bond up to such 
 determination. 
 
 In witness whereof the Principal 
 
 Witness 
 
 and the Surety has 
 
 Canada ■) In the matter of The Bankruptcy Act and 
 
 Province \ the appointment of 
 
 county of i as an authorized Trustee. 
 
 To Wit: 
 
 I, of the City of 
 
 in the County of 
 
 make oath and say that : — 
 
 1. I was personally present and did see the within Surety Bond 
 duly signed and executed by the said 
 
 2. The said Bond was executed at the City of . . . 
 aforesaid. 
 
 3. I know the said • 
 
 4. I am a subscribing ' witness to th« said Bond. 
 
 Sworn before me at the City of 
 
 In the County of . . 
 
 the day of 
 
 A.D. 19 
 
 A Commissioner, etc. 
 
 ■p. C. 175S: Certified copy of a Report of the Committee of the 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 237 
 
 In addition to this general security, the trustee may Section is 
 be required to furnish the additional security called for Additional 
 by section 14(8) in each matter in which he acts asj^jjf 1 ^ 
 trustee 7 . 14(8" sec " 
 
 The creditors may resolve to dispense with further Creditors 
 security. This may he done by ordinary resolution ^dispense* 
 carried as provided by section 42(14) 8 . As to right of ^ r f^ rther 
 trustee to vote on such a resolution, see 42(17) (19) 9 . 
 
 The only penalties for breach of the provisions of Penalties for 
 section 14(9) (10) are those contained in section 96. sections 
 
 15 (1) Creditors constituting a majority in New trustee 
 number of those who have proved debts of Stttuted. 
 twenty-five dollars or upwards and holding 
 half or more in amount of the proved debts 
 of twenty-five dollars or upwards may, at 
 their discretion, at any meeting of creditors, 
 
 Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Administrator on the 
 29th July, 1920. 
 
 The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a 
 report, dated 20th July, 1920, from the Secretary of State, submitting 
 that, by section 14 of The Bankruptcy Act, it is provided that authorized 
 trustees shall give security to the satisfaction of the Governor-in-Coun- 
 cil, by bond or otherwise, and that it is desirable that the form of 
 security if given otherwise than by bond should be clearly defined. 
 
 The Minister, therefore, recommends that the security to be furn- 
 ished under the above section of The Bankruptcy Act shall, if not given 
 in the form of bond or cash, be by deposit of securities of such classes 
 and descriptions as trustees may invest in under the Provincial laws 
 relating to trustes and executors, of the Province for which such trustees 
 may be appointed. 
 
 The Committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit 
 the same for approval. 
 
 (Sgd.) Rodolphe Boudreau, 
 
 Clerk of the Privy Council. 
 The Right Honourable 
 The Secretary of State. 
 
 'As to the rights of bondsmen of the general security where addi- 
 tional security should be taken out and is not : Cf. Letoumeux v. Dan- 
 sereau (1886), 12 S. C. R. 307.; Armstrong v. Forster (1884), 6 0. R. 
 12. In the last mentioned case it was suggested under The Insolvent 
 Act of 1875, that the sureties to a general security are discharged by 
 payment to anyone who recovers judgment against them. 
 
 8 See section 2(ff), 2(z) . 
 
 "Where under the Act of 1875, the majority in value of cred ; tors 
 voted one way. as to the appointment of an assignee and the majority 
 in number another way, there was not a " default in appointment." and 
 the case was properly 'brought 'before the' judge, under section 102 of 
 that Act: In re Harris (1876), 12 C. L. J. 251. 
 
238 
 Section IS 
 
 Removal 
 
 Property 
 of debtor to 
 vest in new 
 trustee. 
 
 Remunera- 
 tion of 
 removed 
 trustee. 
 
 Trustee 
 not bound to 
 act unless 
 tendered fees 
 and 
 
 disburse- 
 ments. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 substitute any other authorized trustee act- 
 ing for or within the same bankruptcy dis- 
 trict or division for the trustee named in the 
 receiving order or to whom an authorized 
 assignment has been made. 
 
 (2) An authorized trustee may be removed and 
 another substituted or an additional autho- 
 rized trustee may be appointed for cause, by 
 the court.. 
 
 (3) When a new trustee is appointed or substi- 
 tuted, all the property and estate of the 
 debtor shall forthwith vest in the new trus- 
 tee without any conveyance or transfer, and 
 he shall gazette a notice of the appointment 
 or substitution and register an affidavit of 
 his appointment in the office Of the registrar 
 of the court from which the receiving order 
 was issued, or in the case of an authorized 
 assignment, in every office in which the 
 original assignment or copy or counterpart 
 thereof was lodged, registered or filed. 
 Registration of such affidavit in any land 
 registration district, land titles office, regis- 
 try office or other land registration office, or 
 lodging or filing such affidavit as aforesaid, 
 shall have the same effect as the registration, 
 lodging or filing of a conveyance or of a 
 transfer to the new trustee. 
 
 (4) The new trustee shall pay to the removed 
 trustee, out of the funds of the estate, his 
 proper remuneration and disbursements, 
 which shall be ascertained as provided by 
 section forty of this Act. 
 
 (5) No authorized trustee shall be bound to 
 accept an authorized assignment or to act as 
 trustee in matters relating to assignments 
 or receiving orders or to compositions, 
 extensions, or arrangements by debtors, if, 
 in his opinion, the realizable value of the 
 property of the debtor is not sufficient to 
 provide the necessary disbursements and a 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 339 
 
 reasonable remuneration for the trustee, section 15 
 unless and until the trustee has been paid or ~ 
 tendered a sum sufficient to defray such dis- 
 bursements and remuneration. 
 
 Cross References Act: Proof of debts, 45, 46; ordinary resolu- 
 tion, 2(z), 42(14) ; special resolution 2(u) ; 'bankruptcy d ; stricts and 
 divisions, 64(5) ; limited territorial authority of trustees 14(2) ; new 
 trustee appointed on failure to furnish security, 14(9) (10) ; property 
 vesting in trustee, 6(3), 10, 25; passing of property, 6(3), 10, 11(4), 
 20(3) (a) ; duties of trustee, 17 et seq. ; remuneration of trustee, 40. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Discharge of, 107 to 110. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Resolution to appoint or substitute 
 another trustee, 33 ; notice of new or substituted trustee, 34 ; affidavit 
 of new or substituted trustee, 35 ; application for discharge, 42 ; affidavit 
 verifying application, 43 ; order discharging authorized trustee, 44. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: Canadian Act, 1875, ss. 29. 31; English 
 Act, 1914, ss. 53(4), 77, 95; Provincial Assignments Acts, R. S. O. 
 1914, c. 134, s. 11 ; R. S< M., 1913, c. 12, s. 16. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Method of voting on substitution of trustee. 
 
 Trustee may be removed for cause under section 15(2) — 
 
 A judicial discretion. 
 
 Several trustees. 
 
 Practice. 
 Vesting in the new trustee of the property of the debtor — 
 
 Registration of affidavit to have same effect as filing of con- 
 veyance. Sec. 15(4). 
 Trustee not bound to accept or act. Sec. 15(5). 
 
 Section 15(1) is in the form in which it was enacted Method of 
 by section 16 by The Bankruptcy Act Amendment A ct, substitution 
 1921 10 . The method of voting in substituting a new of trustee - 
 trustee is not by ordinary or special resolution 1 . 
 Under the English Act of 1869, the court had power to 
 restrain creditors from holding a meeting to consider 
 the removal of the trustee, until after a question as to 
 expunging the proof of the creditor had been decided 2 . 
 
 10 The previous sub-section read : — 
 
 15. (1) A majority in number of the creditors who hold half or 
 more in amount of the proved debts of twenty-five dollars or upwards 
 may, at their discretion, at any meeting of creditors, substitute any 
 other authorized trustee acting for or within the same bankruptcy dis- 
 trict for the trustee named in the receiving order or to whom an autho- 
 rized assignment has been made. 
 
 'See sections 2(z), 2(«), 42(14). As to the right of the 
 trustee to vote see section 42(17) (19). 
 
 'In re Hansel ex parte Sayer (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 679 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 
 
240 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.* 
 
 Trustee may 
 be removed 
 for cause 
 under 
 sec. 15(2). 
 
 A judicial 
 discretion. 
 
 Section 15 In the case of an assignment of both, partnership 
 — and separate assets all the creditors both partnership 
 and separate will be allowed to vote 3 . 
 
 Where the debtor has made an authorized assign- 
 ment to a trustee chosen by himself, a creditor who 
 presents a bankruptcy petition may, if the court decides 
 to make a receiving order, have the trustee named in 
 the petition appointed as the trustee of the estate. 
 
 While actual misconduct will be sufficient cause for 
 the removal of the trustee, such as the payment of 
 estate moneys to his own private account at his bank 4 , 
 there may also be conduct showing that the trustee is 
 no longer fit to remain a trustee, though his conduct, 
 may fall far short of fraud or dishonesty 5 . It is suf- 
 ficient cause for the removal of the trustee that he has 
 left the country in debt and gone to reside in a foreign 
 country 6 ; or that he is the solicitor of the bankrupt 7 . 
 
 In making the order contemplated by section 15(2) 
 the court is exercising a judicial discretion which if it 
 has been exercised according to law, that is upon good 
 cause shown, will not be interfered with 8 . If the facts 
 are open to two reasonable interpretations the appeal 
 court will trust to the discretion of the court below 9 . 
 
 Section 15(2) probably authorizes the removal of 
 one of several trustees without the removal of all 10 . 
 An additional trustee may be appointed, and, it seems 
 with limited powers, and for a limited purpose, such 
 as the sale of the assets, pending a decision on the 
 question of the removal of the previous trustee 1 . Where 
 there are more assignees than one of a bankrupt estate, 
 
 *Luxton v. Hamilton (1864), 10 U. O. L. J. 334, and see as to 
 consolidation of proceedings in such a case and the appointment of a 
 single trustee 69(3). 
 
 'Ex parte Townsend (1809), 15 Ves. 470. 
 
 5 In re Mansel ex parte Newitt (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 177; 54 L. J. 
 Q. B. 245. 
 
 'Gray v. Hatch (1871), 18 Gr. 72, and see for other circumstances: 
 In re Morgan ex parte Wilding (1895), 2 Mans. 526. 
 
 "In re Dickinson (1892), 2 B. C R. 262. As to a case where the 
 assignee was solicitor to the principal secured creditor, see Orillia Export 
 Lumber Co. v. Burson (1903), 2 O. W. R. 1110. 
 
 ' Ex parte Sheard in re Pooley (1880), 16 Ch. D. 107. 
 
 'In re Mansel ex parte Newitt (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 177; 54 L. J. 
 Q. B. 245 ; In re Dunkley ex parte Cass (1881), 45 L. T. 560. 
 
 10 In re Mansel ex> parte Newitt. supra. 
 
 1 Brock v. Cline (1906), 8 O. W> R. 144. 
 
 Several 
 trustees. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 241 
 
 one of the assignees may receive moneys belonging to Section 15 
 the estate and give a good discharge therefor 2 , unless 
 his authority to complete the transaction in question 
 has to the knowledge of the person claiming the release 
 been challenged by his co-trustee 3 . A general authority 
 from one of several assignees of an estate in bank- 
 ruptcy to the others to act for him and use his name is 
 not sufficient to enable the others to execute a release 
 by deed. There must either be a special authority 
 from the third assignee to execute the deed or the deed 
 must have been executed in his presence and with his 
 concurrence*. 
 
 As to practice in Ontario on applications to remove practice, 
 an assignee under Provincial Acts, see In re Wilson". 
 As to the inherent jurisdiction of courts of equity 
 where there are no bankruptcy courts, see Re Dickin- 
 son". 
 
 As to continuity of representation under the Eng- 
 lish system, see Re Hallett & Co., Ex parte Blcme 7 . 
 
 Difficulties are likely to arise in the interpretation vesting in 
 of section 15(3). Unless the words of that section ^ s °|f of tne 
 which read "when a new trustee is appointed or sub- property of 
 stituted all the property and estate 8 of the debtor shall 
 forthwith vest in the new trustee without any convey- 
 ance or transfer" are themselves sufficient to exclude 
 the operation of provincial registration and land titles 
 Acts, compliance with those Acts will be necessary for 
 section 11(4) does not apply to the case of an appoint- 
 ment or substitution of a trustee under section 15. 
 That this conclusion is correct seems to be indicated by 
 the last sentence of section 15 (3), which provides for 
 the registration of an affidavit of appointment 9 , a docu- 
 ment which is to have the same effect as the registra- 
 
 v. Jamesons (1793) , 1 Bsp. 114. 
 
 'Bristow v. Eastman (1793), 1 Esp. 172; see contra Can. v. Read 
 (1749), 3 Atk. 695, and see Primrose v. Bromley (1739), 1 Atk. 89. 
 
 'Williams v. Walsby (1802), 4 Esp. 220. 
 
 s (1903), 6 O. L. R. 564; In re Davis' Trust (1896), 17 P. R. 187. 
 
 8 (1892), 2 B. C. R. 262. 
 
 ' (1893), 10 Mor. 250. 
 
 'Note that the word " estate" is not used in sections 6(3) or 10, or 
 in section 11(4). 
 
 "Form 35. 
 
 B.C.— 16 
 
242 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 15 tion or filing of a conveyance or transfer. It is con- 
 sidered that compliance with provincial Acts is neces- 
 sary ; and that until this matter is authoritatively deter- 
 mined, the new trustee will be well advised to register 
 the affidavit of appointment in every office in which the . 
 interest of the debtor in real estate or immoveable pro- 
 perty was registered or recorded, and this whether the 
 first trustee was acting under a receiving order or 
 under an authorized assignment. The coupling of the 
 words ' ' property and estate ' ' may raise a difficulty in 
 the case of personalty. Whether this is found to be the 
 case or not, there is no provision for registration of 
 any document to evidence transfer of personalty. 
 Kegistration Section 15(3) may be compared with sections 18(1) 
 toSsame and 53(4) of the English Act. By section 18(1) when 
 fiHn Ct Tf ^e court adjudges the debtor bankrupt, "thereupon 
 conveyance, the property of the debtor shall become divisible among 
 his creditors and shall vest in a trustee, ' ' and by section 
 53(4) the certificate of the appointment, of the trustee 
 (which is given by the Board of Trade), "shall for all 
 purposes of any law in force in any part of the British 
 Dominions requiring registration, enrolment or record- 
 ing of conveyances or assignments of property, be 
 deemed to be a conveyance or assignment of property, 
 and may be enregistered, enrolled and recorded accord- 
 ingly. " w 
 Sec. 15(4). Section 15(4) directing the new trustee to pay the 
 
 removed trustee his proper remuneration and disburse- 
 ments will not apply to the case of a trustee de son tort 1 . 
 Unless there are controlling circumstances, the trustee 
 has a lien on the trust property for whatever compen- 
 sation he may be entitled to 2 . Where the trustee parts 
 with possession of the estate to the debtor, he will lose 
 his lien 3 . 
 Sec. 15(5). Section 15(5) which has to do with the right of a 
 
 bou U nd e to not trustee to refuse to accept an assignment or to act in 
 
 ■ aCCeP " ' » See In re Caloott & Elvins' Contract (1898), 2 Ch. 460; 67 h. J. 
 
 Ch. 553 ; 5 Mans. 208. aA „ , 
 
 % In re J. & B: Richards ex parte 0. R. (1884), 1 Mor. 242, and 
 see notes to section 9. •- , 1co ,v n± 
 
 2 In re Tilsonburg & Lake Erie & Pacific R. W. Co. (1SHU. ** 
 O. A. R. 378 and see Rule. 
 
 'In re Silver (1877), 2 O. A. R. 1. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 243 
 
 matters relating to assignments, receiving orders, com- section 15 
 positions, extensions or arrangements, is in words 
 which appear to be wide enough to apply to all trustees, 
 though the balance of section 15 has reference only to 
 questions relating to new trustees. 
 
 Section 15(5) says that no authorized trustee is 
 bound to accept an authorized assignment ; it says noth- 
 ing about the acceptance of the estate of the debtor 
 under a receiving order. The statute in this respect 
 does not alter the law as it existed under certain pro- 
 vincial assignments Acts; for under those Acts the 
 assignment did not become effective until assented to 
 by the assignee 4 . It may be that in the case of an 
 authorized assignment which is a voluntary act and 
 an assignment of the whole of the debtor's pro- 
 perty, it is" not open to the trustee to accept the pro- 
 perty in part and reject it in part 5 ,' except in so far as 
 the Act gives express authority to the trustee so to do". 
 It may be that one reason for the provision that an 
 authorized trustee is not bound to accept an authorized 
 assignment is that a trustee who acts under an author- 
 ized assignment may be a trustee de son tort if a receiv- 
 ing order is subsequently made 7 . 
 
 Section 15(5) goes on to state that no authorized 
 trustee shall be bound to act in matters relating to 
 assignments or receiving orders or to compositions, 
 extensions or schemes if in his opinion the realizable 
 value of- the property is not sufficient to provide the 
 necessary disbursements and a reasonable remunera- 
 tion for the trustee, unless he has been paid or tendered 
 a sum sufficient to defray such disbursements and 
 remuneration. A distinction thus appears to be made 
 between accepting an authorized assignment and acting 
 in matters relating to assignments, receiving orders 
 arid compositions. Following the usual rule in the con- 
 
 i Bell v. Chartered Trust & Executor Co. (1919), 46. O. L. K. 192. 
 Under section 2(4) of The Insolvent Act of 1864, a voluntary assign- 
 ment to an official assignee was ineffectual unless accepted by the assignee 
 or acted upon by him- Yarrington v. Lyon (1866), 12 Gr. 308; Becker 
 v. Blackburn (1873), 23 U. C. C. P. 207. 
 
 'Per Duff, J., in North West Theater Co. v. MacKinnon (1916), 
 52 S. C. R. 588, 599. 
 
 •' See section 52. 
 
 'See notes to sections 9 and 10. 
 
244 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 16 struction of statutes it will perhaps be held that the 
 clause with respect to tender has reference to the trus- 
 tee acting in matters relating to assignments, etc., and 
 not to the acceptance by the trustee of an authorized 
 assignment 8 . 
 
 The landlord's claim for rent is a matter which the 
 trustee should consider if not before he accepts, at least 
 before he acts under an assignment 9 . 
 
 Official 
 name of 
 trustee in 
 bankruptcy 
 or assign- 
 ment 
 proceedings. 
 
 In composi- 
 tion or 
 'extension 
 proceedings. 
 
 Official Name. 
 
 16 (1) The official name of an authorized trus- 
 tee acting in bankruptcy or authorized 
 assignment proceedings shall be "The Trus- 
 tee of the Property of 
 
 a Bankrupt (or Authorized Assignor)" 
 (inserting the name of the bankrupt or 
 assignor), and by that name the trustee may 
 in any part of Canada or elsewhere hold 
 property of every description, make con- 
 tracts, sue or be sued, enter into any engage- 
 ment binding on himself and his successors 
 in office, and do all other acts necessary or 
 expedient to be done in the execution of his 
 office. 
 
 (2) The official name of an authorized trustee 
 acting with respect to the. proceedings by a 
 debtor for a composition of, or extension of 
 time for the payment of, his debts, or an 
 arrangement of his affairs shall be "The 
 
 Trustee acting in re the proposal of 
 
 (insert the name of the debtor) for a com- 
 position of his debts" or "arrangement of 
 his affairs. ' ' 
 
 Cross References Act: Power of trustee to bring actions, 
 20(1) (c), and of. 33, 35; costs in discretion of court, 68(2) ; style of 
 proceedings, 68(1); "or elsewhere" see notes to 2(dd) ; property 
 defined, 2 (eta) ; duties and powers of trustee, 17 et seq. 
 
 3 Ad proosimum antecedent fiat relatio nisi impediatur sententia. 
 The Molsons Bank v. Halter (1890), IS S. C. K. 88. 
 
 "See In re Auto Experts ex parte Tanner (1921), 1 0. B. R. 418, 
 422 (Ord-e, J.). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 245 
 
 Cross References Rules: Trustee not personally liable for costs Section 17 
 in certain cases, 54(3). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. 76. 
 
 The trustee may sue in his own name as well as in 
 his official name 10 .. 
 
 Duties and Powers of Trustees. 
 
 17 (1). The trustee shall, as soon as may be, Duties and 
 take possession of the deeds, books and docu- ^tee ° f 
 ments of the debtor and all other parts of 
 his property capable of manual delivery. 
 
 (2) The trustee shall, in relation to and for theTrustee to 
 purpose of acquiring or retaining possession be receivcr - 
 of the property of the debtor, be in the same 
 position as if he were a receiver of the pro- 
 perty, appointed by the court, and the court 
 
 may on his application enforce such acqui- 
 sition or retention accordingly. 
 
 (3) The trustee shall, on the making of a receiv- Trustee to 
 ing order or. an authorized assignment, property of 
 forthwith insure and keep insured in his debtor - 
 official name until sold or disposed of, all the 
 insurable property of the debtor, to the fair 
 realizable value thereof or to such other in- 
 surable amount as may be approved by the 
 inspectors or by the court, in insurance com- 
 panies authorized to carry on business in the 
 province wherein the insured property is 
 situate. 
 
 (4) All insurance covering property of the Losses 
 debtor in force at .the date of the making of See! t0 
 such receiving order or execution of such 
 assignment shall, immediately upon such 
 making or executing, and without any notice 
 
 to the insurer or other action on the part of 
 the trustee, and notwithstanding any statute 
 or rule of law or contract or provision to a 
 
 ™Leemmg v. Murry (1879), 13 Ch. D. 123; 48 L. J. Ch. 737; 28 
 W. R. 388, and see notes to section 20(1) (c), and section 25, where 
 the English practice with respect to pending actions is summarized. 
 
246 
 
 THE BANKRVPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 17 contrary effect, become and be, in the event of 
 
 loss suffered, payable to the trustee, as fully 
 and effectually as if the name of the trustee" 
 were written in the policy or contract of 
 insurance as that of the insured, or as if no 
 change of title or ownership had come about 
 and the trustee were the insured. 
 
 Cross References Act: On making of R. O. trustee constituted 
 receiver, 6(1) ; inspectors, 43; trustee not personally liable if not negli- 
 gent for ioss or damage where property of third party lost or disposed 
 of, 22 ; duty of debtor to assist trustee, 54 ; duties and powers of trustees 
 generally, 17 to 27 ; arrest of debtor about to conceal or destroy books, 
 53(1) (6) ; offence of not delivering up books, 89(c) ; and see 89(A) to 
 (I) ; failure to keep books- or mutilation of them, 91, 59 (o) ; alternative 
 powers of court and inspectors,. 88a. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Application to court, 4, 14 et seq.; 
 no person as against trustee entitled to withhold possession of books or 
 set up any lien on them, 145. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. 48(1) (2). 
 
 Trustee 
 guilty of 
 breach of 
 trust. 
 
 Trustee to 
 take posses- 
 sion of the 
 books of 
 debtor. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Trustee guilty of breach of trust. 
 
 Trustee to take possession of the books of the debtor. 
 
 Trustee must elect whether to treat former trustee as trustee de 
 
 i son tort. 
 
 Trustee a receiver whose possession not to be interfered with. 
 
 Duty of trustee as officer of court to act fairly. 
 
 Seetion 17(4). 
 
 Section 17(3) is in the form in which it was enacted 
 by section 17 of The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 
 
 192a 10 . 
 
 A trustee who allows property to remain in the pos- 
 session of the debtor which is ultimately lost to the 
 estate may be guilty of breach of trust and liable for 
 the value of the property and interest 11 . 
 
 Where other persons in addition to the bankrupt 
 have an interest in the books the trustee is not entitled 
 
 10 The previous section read : — 
 
 17. (3) Unless otherwise directed in writing' by the inspectors, the 
 trustee shall forthwith, on the making of a receiving order or execution 
 of an authorized assignment, insure and keep insured in his official name 
 until sold or disposed of by him all the insurable property of the debtor, 
 to the full insurable value thereof, in insurance companies duly autho- 
 rized to carry on business in the province wherein the insured property 
 is situate. 
 
 11 Ex parte Ogle in re Pilling (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 711; 42 h. J. 
 Bank. 99. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 247 
 
 to exclusive possession ; but all parties interested are Section 17 
 < entitled to inspection of them 12 . Documents of the bank- ~ 
 rupt, though of a purely personal nature, pass to the 
 trustee 1 . Semble the court has jurisdiction to direct a 
 foreign firm to pay over to the trustee all moneys and 
 other property which it has belonging to the bankrupt 2 . 
 
 In England where the trustee under a creditor 's Trustee must 
 deed, on which an adjudication is made, takes posses- ^treat"* 1 "* 
 sion of the debtor 's property or intermeddles with it 3 , former trus- 
 
 ^pp h **i fTii^f~pp 
 
 the trustee in bankruptcy may elect whether to treat de son tort. 
 the former trustee as his agent or a trespasser. If he 
 elects to treat him as his agent, he is entitled to an 
 account of the carrying on of the business, and the pro- 
 fit which he has made or ought to have made; if he 
 elects to treat him as his agent, he is entitled to an 
 account of the value at the date of taking of posses- 
 sion; and an account of the property which 
 he converted since that date 4 , and the trustee de son 
 tort will not be entitled to retain any of the assets in his 
 hands on the ground that a sum exceeding the assets is 
 due to him for work and labour done 5 . 
 
 The trustee being in the position of a receiver 6 is Trustee a 
 not to be interfered with. Thus where a creditor under ™^^ e ' gea _ 
 a bill of sale and the trustee have concurrent possession sion not to 
 
 HP TTI't'PTf PT*Pfl 
 
 of the goods, the creditor may not, while the question with, 
 of the validity of his security is before the court, break 
 the concurrent possession and remove the property 7 . 
 
 12 In re Burnand ex parte Baker or Wilson (1904), 2 K. B. 68 ; 73 
 L. J. K. B. 413 ; 11 Mans. 113. 
 
 1 In re Sherman (1915), 1 H. B. R. 231. 
 
 'In re Thornton, Davidson & Co. (1921), 1 C. B. R. 380 (Bruneau, 
 J.). 
 
 3 In re Prigoshen ex parte O. R. (1912) . 2 K. B. 494 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 
 1199 ; 19 Mans. 323. 
 
 'Ex parte Vaughan in re Riddeough (1SS4), 14 Q. B. D,. 25; 1 
 Mor. 258; In re Prigoshen ex parte 0. R., supra ; Davis v. Petrie (1906), 
 2 K. B. 786 ; 75 L. J. K. B. 992 ; 13 Mansi. 344. 
 
 s In re J. & S. Richards ex parte 0. R. (1884), 1 Mor. 242; see 
 notes to section 3(a), 4(10), 9, 10, 25. 
 
 'See 17(2) and 6(1). As to the powers and duties' of receivers 
 appointed by the court, see Kerr : Law and Practice of Receivers, 
 Sweet & Maxwell ; Halsbury : Laws of England, Vol. XXIV ; IRiviere : 
 The Law Relating to Receivers and Managers, Stevens & Sons. 
 
 'In re Fells ex parte Andrews (1875), 4 Ch. D. 509; 46 L. J. 
 Bank. 23. 
 
248 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 18 
 
 Duty of 
 trustee as 
 officer of 
 Court to act 
 fairly. 
 
 Sec. 17(4). 
 
 In the administration of a bankrupt's estate the 
 trustee, as an officer of the court, will be ordered to do 
 what the court considers to be morally right and hon- 
 est, even in a case in which no claim can be sustained 
 against him at law or in equity 8 . 
 
 Thus the trustee being an officer of the court will 
 be ordered to repay money paid voluntarily, to him 
 under a mistake of law if he still has the money in his 
 hands, or subsequently obtains funds which can be used 
 for this purpose 9 , but this rule does not extend to a 
 case where there has been no act or omission on 
 the part of the trustee, as where a person pays money 
 on behalf of the bankrupt after notice of an available 
 act of bankruptcy, though in ignorance of the effect of 
 the bankruptcy law 10 . 
 
 Section 17(4) will dp away with whatever uncer- 
 tainty existed as to the effect on an insurance policy 
 of an assignment for the benefit of creditors. It was 
 held in an Ontario case 1 that an assignment under the 
 Ontario Assignments . and Preferences Act of insured 
 property, without the permission of the insurer, did 
 not avoid the policy under the terms of the fourth 
 statutory condition, which reads : 
 
 " If the property insured is assigned without a written permis- 
 sion endorsed hereon by an agent of the company duly authorized 
 for such purpose, the policy shall thereby become void; but this 
 condition does not apply to change of title by succession or by the 
 operation of the iaw, or by reason of death." 
 
 Powers of 
 trustee to 
 deal with 
 property. 
 
 18 Subject to the provisions of this Act, an 
 authorized trustee may do all or any of the 
 following things : — 
 (a) Give receipts for any money received by 
 
 s In re Tyler esc parte 0. R. (1907) , 1 K. B. 865 ; 76 Li. J. K. B. 541 ; 
 14 Mans. 73, and see notes to section 4(10). 
 
 "Ex parte James in re Condon (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 609; 43 L. J. 
 Bank. 107 ; Ex parte Simmonds in re Carnac (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 308 ; 55 
 L. J. Q. B. 74; In re and ex parte Rhoades (1899), 2 Q. B. 347; 68 
 L. J. Q. B. 804 : 6 Mans. 277. 
 
 w In re Hall ex parte 0. R. (1907), 1 K. B. 875; 76 L-. J. K. B. 
 546; 14 Mans. 82, and see In re Phillips (1914). 2 K. B. 6S0 ; 83 
 L. J. K. B. 1364; 21 Mans. 144. See also notes to section 25 and 
 Chapter VI. 
 
 1 Wade v. Rochester C rman Fire Ins. (1911), 23 0. L. K. 635. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 249 
 
 him, which, receipts shall effectually dis- section is 
 charge the person paying the money from 
 all responsibility in respect of the applica- 
 tion thereof ; 
 
 (b) Prove, rank, claim and draw a dividend 
 in respect of any debt due to the debtor ; 
 
 (c) Exercise any powers the capacity to 
 exercise which is vested in the trustee 
 under this Act, and execute any powers of 
 attorney, deeds and other instruments for 
 the purpose of carrying into effect the 
 provisions of this Act. 
 
 (d) An authorized trustee may at any time Trustee may 
 apply to the court for directions in rcla-^P^° r 
 tion to any matter affecting the adminis- directions, 
 tration of the estate of a bankrupt, an 
 authorized assignor or a debtor who has 
 
 made a proposal for a composition, exten- 
 sion or scheme of arrangement. The court 
 shall give in writing such directions, if 
 any, as may be proper according to the 
 circumstances and not inconsistent with 
 this Act, which directions shall bind, as 
 well as justify the subsequent consonant 
 action of, the trustee. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914. s. 55(2) (3) (4); 
 79(3). 
 
 Section 18(d) was first enacted by The Bankruptcy 
 Act Amendment Act, 1921. 
 
 Trustees applying to prove are not bound by the 
 same laches as might bind an individual creditor 2 . 
 
 Semble, the creditor must join with the trustee in 
 the affidavit in proof of the debt where an affidavit is 
 required. 3 
 
 It should not be assumed that section 18 (d) will 
 authorize a trustee to apply to the court for directions 
 in simple matters of administration where there is no 
 doubt as to the power of the trustee. The trustee and 
 the inspectors are the administrators of the estate, not 
 the court. See sections 17, 20, 43, 88a. 
 
 "Ex parte Smith in re Marsh (1-832), 1 D & C. 267. 
 ' In re Amner ex parte Robson (1841) , 2 M. D, 4 D. 65. 
 
250 
 
 Section 19 
 
 Trustee to 
 have right 
 to sell 
 patented 
 articles. 
 
 Right of 
 manufac- 
 turer. 
 
 Copyright. 
 
 THE) BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 19 (1) Where any property of the debtor vest- 
 ing in an authorized trustee consists of 
 patented articles or goods which were sold 
 to the debtor subject to any restrictions or 
 limitations, the trustee shall not be bound 
 by any such restrictions or limitations but 
 may sell and dispose of any such patented 
 articles, or goods as hereinbefore provided^ 
 free and clear of any such restrictions or 
 limitations. 
 
 (2) If the manufacturer or vendor of any 
 such patented articles or goods objects to 
 the disposition of them by the trustee as 
 aforesaid and gives to the trustee notice in 
 writing of such objection within five days 
 after the date of the receiving order or 
 authorized assignment, such manufacturer 
 or vendor shall have the right to purchase 
 such patented articles or goods at the invoice 
 prices thereof, subject to any reasonable 
 deduction for depreciation or deterioration. 
 
 (3) Where the property of a bankrupt or 
 authorized assignor comprises the copyright 
 in any work or any interest in such copy- 
 right, and he is liable to pay to the author of 
 the work royalties or a share of the profits 
 in respect thereof, the trustee shall not be 
 entitled to sell, or authorize the sale of, any 
 copies of the work, or to perform or authorize 
 the performance of the work, except on the 
 terms of paying to the author such sums by 
 way of royalty or share of the profits as 
 would have been payable by the bankrupt or 
 authorized assignor, nor shall he, without 
 the consent of the author or of the court, be 
 entitled to assign the right or transferee 
 interest or to grant any interest, in the right 
 by license, except upon terms which will 
 secure to the author payments by way of 
 royalty or share of the profits at a rate not 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 251 
 
 less than that which the bankrupt or autho- section 20 
 rized assignor was liable to pay. 
 
 Cross References Act: Property defined, 2(dd) ; property vest- 
 ing in trustee, 6(3), 10, 25; power of trustee to sell, 20(1) (a). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: To section 19(3) ; English Act, 1914, 
 s. 60. 
 
 See In re Richards, Ex p. Deeping, which was pre- 
 vious to the passing of the corresponding English sec- 
 tion 4 . 
 
 20 (1) The trustee may, with the permission Powers 
 in writing of the inspectors, do all or any of by\"ustee e 
 the following things :— ^mission 
 
 (a) Sell all or any part of the property of of inspectors, 
 the debtor (including the goodwill of the 
 business, if any, and the book debts due or 
 growing due to the debtor), by public 
 auction or private contract, with power to 
 transfer the whole thereof to any person 
 or company, or to sell the same in parcels ; 
 (&) Carry on the business of the debtor, so 
 far as may be necessary for the beneficial 
 winding-up of the same ; 
 
 (c) Bring, institute, or defend any action or 
 other legal proceeding relating to the 
 property of the debtor ; 
 
 (d) Employ a solicitor or other agent to 
 take any proceedings or do any business, 
 which may be sanctioned by the inspec- 
 tors ; 
 
 (e) Accept as the consideration for the sale 
 of any property of the debtor a sum of 
 money payable at a future time subject to 
 such stipulations as to security and other- 
 wise ias the inspectors think fit ; 
 
 (/) Mortgage or pledge any part of the pro- 
 perty of the debtor for the purpose of 
 raising money for the payment of his 
 debts ; 
 
 4 (1907), 2 K. B. 33; 76 L. J. K. B. 643; 14 Mans. 88, and cf. 
 Barker v. Stichney (1919), 1 K. B. 121. 
 
252 
 Section 20 
 
 Trustee with 
 permission 
 of inspectors 
 may retain 
 or disclaim 
 leases. 
 
 Permission 
 limited to 
 particular 
 thing or 
 class. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 (g) Refer, any dispute to arbitration, com- 
 promise any debts, claims and liabilities, 
 whether present or future, certain or 
 contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, 
 subsisting or supposed to subsist between 
 the debtor and any person who may have 
 incurred any liability to the debtor, on the 
 receipt of such sums, payable at such 
 times, and generally on such terms as may 
 be agreed on ; 
 
 (h) Make such compromise or other 
 arrangement as may be thought expedi- 
 ent with creditors, or persons claiming to 
 be creditors, in respect of any debts prov- 
 able against the estate ; 
 
 (i) Make such compromise or other 
 arrangement as may be thought expedi- 
 ent with respect to any claim arising out 
 of or incidental to the property- of the 
 debtor, made or capable of being made on 
 the trustee by any person or by the trustee 
 on any person ; 
 
 ( j) Divide in its existing form amongst the 
 ' creditors, according to its estimated value, 
 any property which from its peculiar 
 nature or other special circumstances can- 
 not be readily or advantageously sold. 
 
 (k) Elect to retain for the whole or part of 
 its unexpired term, or to assign or dis- 
 claim, the whole pursuant to this Act, any 
 lease of, or other temporary interest in 
 any property forming part of the estate 
 of the debtor. 
 (2) The permission given for the purposes of 
 this section shall not be a general permission 
 to do all or any of the above mentioned 
 things but shall only be a permission to do 
 the particular thing or things or class of 
 thing or things which the written permission 
 specifies. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 253 
 
 (3) (a) All sales of property made by the section 20 
 trustee shall vest in the purchaser all the Effect of 
 legal and equitable estate of the debtor s ^ y ^ pro " 
 therein ; trustee. 
 
 (&) in the province of Quebec, if the salesaiesin 
 has been made at public auction at the f™ e ^ e n c ce of 
 place prescribed and after advertisement 
 as required for the sale of immoveable 
 property by sheriff, in the district or place 
 where such immoveable property is situ- 
 ate, the sale made by the trustee shall have 
 the same effect as to mortgages, hypo- 
 thecs, privileges or other real rights then 
 existing thereon as, if the same had been 
 made by the sheriff in the said province 
 under a writ of execution issued in the 
 ordinary course, and the title conveyed 
 by such sale in the said province shall 
 have equal validity with a title created by 
 sheriff's sale, and the conveyance of the 
 trustee shall have the same effect as a 
 sheriff's deed in the said province. Such 
 sale shall be subject to the contribution to 
 the building and jury fund provided for 
 in the case of sheriff's sales. In case of 
 false bidding the same recourse as in case 
 of sheriff's sale may be exercised against 
 the false bidder in the manner prescribed 
 by General Rules. 
 
 Cross References Act: Inspectors, 43, 84(2) ; power of trustee 
 to sue in official name, 16(1) ; power of trustee to recover proceeds, 
 33; right of creditor in some cases to sue, 35, cf. 6(1), 7; no action 
 against trustee for dividend, 37(9) ; trustee not personally liable if not 
 negligent for loss or damage where property of third party seized or dis- 
 posed of, 22; fees and expenses of trustee, 51(1) ; costs of administra- 
 tion, 51(2) ; tariff of costs and fees for attorneys, solicitors and coun- 
 ' sel, 67 ; employment of debtor to carry on his trade or administer pro- 
 perty, 21 ; allowance to debtor, 21; property defined, 2(dd) ; property 
 vesting in trustee, 6(3), 25, 10; property vesting in new trustee, 15(3) ; 
 disallowance of claims, 53; carrying on business, 27, 13(3) ; disclaimer, 
 52. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Costs, 54 to 61 ; fees, 62. 
 
 .Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914. ss. 55(1), 56; 
 Canadian Act, 1875, ss. 38, 39, 43; see R. S. Q., 1909, arts. 7552 to 
 7557; Provincial Assignments Acts, R. S. O. 1914, c. 134, s. 12(1); 
 
254 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 20 Winding-up Act, R. S. C. 1906, c. 144, s. 34 ; The Companies Aet (1862), 
 
 25 & 26 Vic. c. 89, s. 98 (Imp.) ; The Companies (Consolidation) Act 
 
 (1908), 8 Ed. VII., c. 69, s. 151 (Imp.). 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Permission in writing of the inspectors. 
 Sale under section 20(1) (a) — ■ 
 
 Persons who may not purchase: 
 Inspector. 
 Trustee. 
 
 Solicitor of debtor. 
 Solicitor of trustee. 
 Auctioneer. 
 Encumbrancers. 
 Belief when sale attacked. 
 Effect of sale of good will. 
 Book debts due or growing due: 
 Good title. 
 Sale by auction. 
 Sale by private contract; 
 Property of the debtor. 
 Contract too indefinite. 
 Applications to stop sale. 
 Carrying on the business under section 20(1) (6). 
 Carrying on legal proceedings under 20(1) (c) — 
 Costs'. 
 
 Security for costs. 
 
 Absence of permission of inspectors no defence. 
 Effect of trustee electing not to proceed. 
 Extent to which trustee represents creditors. 
 Proceedings to be taken only for benefit of estate in general. 
 Rights of action passing to the trustee. 
 Power to'employ solicitor or other agent under section 20(1) (d)- — 
 Inspectors may limit amount of costs to be incurred. 
 Absence of permission of inspector no defence to action. 
 Bringing in bills for taxation. 
 Trustee personally liable to solicitor for his costs. 
 Solicitor's lien. 
 
 Application by solicitor for payment. 
 Court exercises jurisdiction over solicitor. 
 Bankrupt may not usually intervene. 
 Compromise under section 20(1) (g) (&).(*). 
 
 Duty of trustee not of court to settle terms of compromise. 
 Trustee may apply for approval of compromise. 
 Bankrupt usually has no locus standi. 
 Effect of absence of permission of inspectors. 
 Compromise of contingent claims. 
 Disclaimer under section 20(1) (k) . 
 
 Section 20(2). Permission must not be, a general permission. 
 Section 20(3) (a). Sales of property by the trustee. 
 Section 20(3) (6). 
 
 Section 20(1) (k) was first enacted by section 19 of 
 The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921. Section 
 20(2) is as it was enacted by section 20 of fhe Bank- 
 ruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921 5 . 
 
 The previous section read :- — 
 
 20(2). The permission given for the purposes of this section shall 
 
 nrtf Vwi a m n^i.nl naiwioeinn +n An all *vr anv nf fhp nhftVP mentioned thiDKS, 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 255 
 
 Section 20(1) requires the permission in writing Section 20 
 of the inspectors as authorization for the trustee to do permission 
 the things set out in the section. Under the English ™ ^ ritins 
 Act permission in writing is not required. The inspectors, 
 authorization may be signed by the inspectors sepa- 
 rately; no meeting is required 6 . The permission in 
 question is required for the protection of the estate, 
 and is not a condition precedent to the effective execu- 
 tion of the powers conferred on the trustee; its 
 absence therefore cannot be set up by a defendant as 
 an answer to proceedings by the trustee 7 . 
 
 Semble the creditors cannot override the directions 
 given by the inspectors 8 ; but if aggrieved by any act or 
 decision of the trustee they may apply to the court 
 under section 39; section 79(1) of the English Act has 
 been omitted from the Canadian Act. The position of 
 the inspectors is therefore stronger under the Canadian 
 Act 9 . 
 
 Section 20(1) (a) must be read with section 20(3). 
 
 Under the English Act, the trustee does not require sale under 
 the permission of the inspectors to sell 10 . Sec - 2 °W(°) 
 
 The consent of the inspectors to a transfer is not 
 required where a creditor proceeding under section 35 
 has had a previous conveyance set aside and acquires 
 a right to have the property conveyed to him 11 . 
 
 It has in effect been held in Quebec that the court, 
 before the appointment of inspectors, 12 can give the 
 trustee the permission to act which the inspectors may 
 give under section 20. Thus the court has authorized 
 
 but shall only be a permission to do any particular thing or things for 
 which permission is sought in the specified case or cases. 
 
 "Ex parte White in. re Gearing (1881), 29 W. B. 632. 
 
 'In re Branson ex parte Trustee (1914), 2 K. B. 701 ; 83 L. J. 
 K. B. 1310; 21 Mans. 160, and see Cyclemakers Co. v. Sims (1903), 
 1 K. B. 477. 
 
 "In re Oeiger (1915), 1 K. B. 439; In re Salmon ex parte O. R. 
 (1916), 2 K. B. 510. Contrast In re Consolidated Diesel Engine Mfgs. 
 (1915), 1 Ch. 192. The effect of section 88a has yet to be determined. 
 
 9 But the trustee, if the creditors are decidedly against a proposed 
 course of action, may be well advised to apply to the court for approval : 
 See Ex parte Hurloatt in re Ridgeway (1890), 61 L. T. 647; 6 Mor. 
 277. 
 
 "Section 55. 
 
 11 Donovan v. Heroert (1885), 12 (X A. R. 298, affd. in S. C. C. Cout- 
 lee S...C. Dig. (1875-1903) 1434. 
 
 12 See section 88a. 
 
256 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Persons who 
 may not 
 purchase. 
 
 Inspector. 
 
 Trustee. 
 
 Section 20 the trustee to sell part of the property of the bankrupt 
 to provide funds for necessary expenses 13 ; and the 
 court has likewise authorized the trustee to contest an 
 action in a foreign court 14 . 
 
 Section 20(1) (a) must not be used as a means by 
 which directors and shareholders of an insolvent com- 
 pany, having divested themselves of liability, can 
 repossess the property at a dictated price 15 . 
 
 Persons in a fiduciary relation to the general body 
 of creditors are disabled (under the ordinary rules of 
 equity) from becoming purchasers of any part of the 
 estate or making any other arrangement with the trus- 
 tee for their own benefit except upon making full dis- 
 closure of all material facts within their knowledge, 
 giving full credit for the value of their bargain, and 
 obtaining the consent of the creditors 1 . An inspector is 
 in such a fiduciary relation 2 . Time runs under the 
 statute of limitations in his favour from the date of 
 purchase 3 . On the same principle, a trustee may not 
 purchase the estate*, or, it seems the debt or dividend 
 of a creditor 6 . If he~ purchases any part of the estate 
 without the authority of the court he does so at his 
 peril 6 , and confirmation will not be given after a pur- 
 chase made without leave 7 . The court may give the 
 
 1S Z« re Thornton, Davidson & Co. (1921), 1 C. B. R. 381 (Bruneau, 
 J.) ; and see In re Thornton, Davidson & Go. (1921), 1 C. B. R. 383 
 (Bruneau, J ) . 
 
 14 In re Thornton. Davidson & Co. (1921), 1 C. B. R. 383 (Surveyer, 
 J.) ; and see as to handing over property in the possession of the bank- 
 rupt, In re Thornton, Davidson & Co., Macdonald's Claim (1921), 1 
 C. B. R. 380 (Bruneau. J.),. 
 
 "Imperial Bank of Canada v. Barber (1921), 1 C. B. R. 485; 20 
 O. W. N. 282 (Middleton, J, ) . 
 
 1 Taylor v. Davies (1920), A. C. 636, 647. 
 
 2 8. C. and Gastonguay v. Savoie (1899), 29 S. C. R. 613; In re 
 Canada Woollen Mills (Long's Appeal) (1905), 9 O. L. R 367; 8egs- 
 worth v. Anderson (1895), 24 S. C. R. 699 ; though semble his partner 
 purchasing on his own account is not, Ex parte and in re Oallard (1897), 
 2 Q. B. 8 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 484 ; 4 Mans. 52. 
 
 'Taylor v. Davies (1920), A. C. 636. Cf. Eos parte and in re Gal- 
 lard (1897), 2 Q. B. 8; 66 L. J. Q. B. 484; 4 Mans. 52. 
 
 1 Morrison v. Watts (1892), 19 O. A. R. 622; Ex parte Lacey 
 (1802), 6 Ves. 625; Ex parte Bennett (1805), 10 Ves. 381; Kitson v. 
 Hardwieh (1872), L R. 7. 0. P. 473, 478. But see section 27(d). 
 
 * Pooley v. Quilter (1858), 2 DeG. and J. 327, 350; 27 L..J. Ch. 374. 
 
 6 Ex parte Lewis m re Leonard (1819) , 1 61. & J. 69. 
 
 ' In re Knowles ex parte Thwaites (1834), 1 M.& A. 323, q. v. for 
 list of previous cases. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 257 
 
 trustee leave to bid or purchase, but only under very Section 20 
 special circumstances. Such consent will not be given - 
 merely because at a meeting of creditors not attended 
 by all, permission was given to the trustee to bid 8 . 
 There must possibly be "universal consent" 9 . Whe- 
 ther "universal consent" is necessary or not, it is 
 clear that the court will take great care before giving 
 its consent, to see that the parties are put at arm's 
 length, and that they take the character of purchaser 
 and vendor 10 . This careful examination before per- 
 mission is given is the more necessary because after 
 permission is given to bid the fiduciary relationship 
 is past 1 . If a trustee is minded to become the purchaser 
 of the estate he can ask to be discharged from his office 
 of trustee, and when discharged he may be competent 
 to become a purchaser 2 , but the mere form of resigning 
 will not necessarily shake off the obligation which has 
 attached to him as trustee 3 . Nor may a trustee sell to 
 his partner or to anyone else in such a way that the 
 trustee may derive any benefit therefrom 4 ; though it 
 may be that he can sell to his partner where the part- 
 ner is buying for himself and not for the benefit of the 
 partnership 5 . It has however been held that when the 
 proposed sale is clearly to the benefit of the general 
 body of creditors, the court may sanction the sale of 
 the property of the bankrupt to a company promoted 
 by the trustee and the inspectors, in which they are 
 shareholders 6 . A person who is solicitor to the debtor solicitor of 
 before his bankruptcy and as such acquires inf orma- debtor - 
 
 s Ex parte Beaumont in re Edmontson (1834), 1 M. & A. 304; 
 Morrison v. Watts (1892), 19 O. A. R. 622; Ex parte Molineux (1835), 
 4 Dea. & C. 460. 
 
 ' Ex parte Lacey (1802) , 6 Ves. 625 ; Ex parte James (1803) , 8 Ves. 
 337. Under the Ontario Act inspectors could not give a trustee permis- 
 sion to purchase: Morrison v. Watts (1892), 19 O. A. R. 622. 
 
 n Gibson v. Jeyes, 2 Ves. 266, 277 ; Morrison v. Watts, supra. 
 
 1 Boswell v. Cooks, 23 Ch. D. 302 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 465. 
 
 ■In re and ex parte Wamwright (1881), 19 Ch. D. 140, 147; 51 
 L. J. Ch. 67; Ex parte Molineux (1835), 4 Dea. & C. 460. 
 
 'Morrison v. Watts (1892), 19 O. A. R. 622; Ex parte Lacey 
 (1802), 6 Ves. 625. 
 
 *7n re and ex parte Moore (1882), 51 L. J. Ch. 72; 45 L. T. 558. 
 
 6 Ex parte and in re Gallard (1897) , 2 Q. B. 8 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 484 ; 
 4 Mans. 52. 
 
 *Ex parte Slater in re Spink (1913), 108 L. T. 572. 
 
 B.O.— 17 
 
258 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Solicitor of 
 trustee. 
 
 Auctioneer. 
 
 Incumbran- 
 cers. 
 
 Section 20 tion as to the value of property of the debtor, may not 
 after bankruptcy avail himself of this information to 
 purchase from the trustee the property of the bankrupt 
 at an advantage 7 . The solicitor to the commission was 
 never allowed to purchase, except where, being a 
 mortgagee, he was first displaced and another solicitor 
 appointed to the commission 8 . The rule even extended 
 so far that the solicitor might not purchase for an- 
 other 8 . As the auctioneer bears a fiduciary character 
 with reference to the estate he too is precluded from 
 becoming a purchaser by the general policy of the law 
 which prohibits an agent from selling to himself 10 , but 
 there is no such rule to prevent a sale to the bankrupt 1 
 or to his partners 2 . 
 
 The court will give leave to mortgagees to bid 3 , 
 and in such case the court may permit the costs of the 
 application for leave to bid to be paid out of the pro- 
 ceeds of the sale*. Whether when a trust estate has 
 been directed to be sold the trustee who is also an 
 incumbrancer shall be at liberty to bid is a matter 
 resting in the' sound discretion of the court. Usually 
 leave will not be given until some attempt has been 
 made to sell and proved to be abortive 5 . 
 Relief when Where a purchase made by one in a fiduciary 
 gai« attacked. ca pacity is attacked, there may be a finding that the 
 property remains subject to the trust ; and to have an 
 account taken on that footing; or. a resale may be 
 ordered, the plaintiffs taking the increased price rea- 
 lized, and holding the defendants to the purchase if no 
 more is realized 6 . Where the consent of. an opposing 
 
 'Luddy's Trustee v. Peard (1886), 33 Ch. D. 500; 55 L. J. Ch. 884. 
 
 8 Ex parte Farley in re Delves (1833) , 3 Dea. & 0. 110 ; In re Brown 
 ex parte Towne (1834), 4 Dea. & C. 519; Ex parte James (1803), 
 8 Ves. 337. 
 
 "Ex parte Bennett (1805), 10 Ves. 381. 
 
 "Kitson v. Hardwick (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 473, 478. 
 
 1 Kitson v. Hardivick, supra. 
 
 'In re Motion (1873) , L. R. 9 Ch. 192 
 
 "Ex parte Hammond (1820), 1 Buck 
 (1816), 1 Buck 18. 
 
 i Ex parte Say in re Thornton (1832), 1 D. & C. 32. 
 
 'Hutton v. Justin (1901), 22 C. L. T. Occ. N. 23, affd. (1902), 
 1 O. W. R. 64; Tennant v. Trenchard (1869), L. R. 4 Ch. 537; 38 L. J. 
 Ch. 661. ' . 
 
 "Atkinson v. Casserley (1910), 22 O. L. R. 527; Ex parte Lewis 
 in re Leonard (1819), 1 Gl. & J. 69. 
 
 43 L. J. Bank. 59. 
 464; Ex parte Du Cane 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 359 
 
 creditor to a sale of the property of the debtor is Section 20 
 obtained by a secret arrangement that the opposing ~~ 
 creditor shall obtain a larger dividend than the other 
 creditors; and a note of a third party is given to the 
 creditors to secure to him the amount promised, the 
 arrangement cannot stand, and no action can be main- 
 tained upon the note 7 . 
 
 An assignment of a business and goodwill under Effect of 
 this section confers on the assignee the exclusive right |^ e d ^u 
 to earry on the business assigned, and to represent 
 himself as carrying on that business. But the rights 
 of a purchaser of the goodwill of a business from the 
 trustee do not extend to restrain the bankrupt (even 
 if he joins in the conveyance) from bona fide commenc- 
 ing a fresh business and from seeking assistance in it 
 from his old friends and customers ; for the alienation 
 of his business and goodwill is Involuntary 8 . 
 
 The expression "book debts" is not confined to Book debt* 
 debts entered in a book, but includes all such debts ^" e d °J" e grow " 
 connected with his trade as are due the trader and 
 would in the ordinary course of business be entered in 
 books 9 . 
 
 The trustee, unless he contracts that he is selling Good title, 
 only such title as he may have, is bound to make a good 
 title 10 . 
 
 Where a sale takes place by auction the trustee sale by 
 ..should employ a properly licensed auctioneer if any auctlon - 
 municipal by-law exists prohibiting persons from act- 
 ing as auctioneers unless duly licensed 1 . 
 
 7 Brigham v. Bangue Jacques Cartier (1900), 30 S. C. R. 429. 
 
 "Walker v. Mottram (1881), 19 Ch. D. 355; 51 L. J. Ch. 108; 
 Green v. Morris (1914) , 1 Ch. 562 ; 83 L. J. Ch. 559. 
 
 'Shipley v. Marshall (1863), 32 L. J. C. V. 258; 14 C. B. N. S. 566; 
 but see as to book debts of a solicitor Ex parte Roberts in re Holden 
 (1564) , 10 Jur. N. S. 28. 
 
 10 White v. Foljamoe (1805), 11 Ves. 337; McDonald v. Hanson 
 (1806), 12 Ves. 277. It was held in Johnston v. Barker (1869), 20 
 U. C. C. P. 228, that where a person who had been appointed by the 
 proper authority under the Act of 1864 as official assignee for a county 
 in which he was a non-resident, sold goods of the insolvent in the honest 
 belief that he had a right to sell' them, knowledge on ttqe vendee's part 
 of the possible defect in the assignee's title did not protect him from 
 liability if he had warranted his title. And see section 14(2). 
 
 'Regina v. Rawson (1892), 22 O. R. 467. 
 
260 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 20 A sale may be by private contract without permis- 
 Saie by sion of the court 2 . 
 
 contract. The property of the debtor divisible among his 
 
 Property of creditors is defined in section 25 3 . The right to sue 
 the debtor, under a contract such as a contract of indemnity may 
 be property which can be assigned by the trustee 4 . 
 The purchaser from a trustee of the property affected 
 has the right to continue an action commenced by the 
 trustee to have it declared that a deed made by the 
 debtor purporting to be a conveyance absolute was a 
 mortgage 5 . Share certificates pledged with a firm 
 which afterwards becomes bankrupt may be ordered 
 to be sold after advertisement if the pledgor cannot be 
 found 6 . 
 Contract too A sale at a price which will be equal to twenty-five 
 m e mte. ce nts on the dollar of such of the claims of the credi- 
 tors "as may be admitted or adjudicated" is too 
 indefinite to be enforced 7 . 
 Applications As to applications to the court to stop a sale, see 
 to stop sale. re j^^^o^f . ex parte Montgomery 3 ; Imperial Bank 
 of Canada v. Barber 10 ; in re Lemieux and Capping 
 Motor Distributors, Ltd. 11 ; in re Montreal Bargain £ 
 Jobbing House 12 . 
 
 2 See previously as to sale by private contract, Ex parte Godmg 
 in re Morris (1832), 1 D. & O. 323; In re Motion (1873), L. R. 9 Ch. 
 192 ; 43 L. J. Bank. 59. 
 
 3 See definition of property, section 2 {del). 
 
 * In re Perhins, Poyser v. Beyfus (189S) , 2 Ch. 182 ; 67 L. J. Ch. . 
 454 ; 3 Mans. 193 ; British Union v. Rawson (1916) , 2 Ch. 476 ; Seear v. 
 Lawson (1880), 15 Ch. D. 426; 49 L. J. Bank. 69; Guy v. Churchill 
 (1888), 40 Ch. D. 481; 58 L. J. Ch. 345; see also notes to sections 17, 
 25, 20(3) (o) ; Bertram v. Pendry (1877), 27 U. C. C. P. 371. 
 
 6 Seear v. Lawson, supra, and see notes to section 20(3) (a). A per- 
 son who has purchased from the trustee all the assets will not, -without 
 special circumstances, be entitled to the removal of a stay of proceedings 
 in an action which the trustee had not continued : Selig v. Lion ( 1891 ) , 
 1 Q. B.,513; and see In re Arnold ex parte O. R. (1891), 9 Mor. 1. 
 
 'In re Harrison & Ingram ex parte Whinney (1906), 14 Mans. 132. 
 
 7 In re Bolt and Iron Co. (1885), 10 P. R. 437. 
 
 • (1840) , 1 M. D. & D. 238, an application by a bankrupt ; and see 
 In re and ex parte Wainwright (1881), 19 Ch. D. 140; 51 L. J. Ch. 67; 
 Kitson v. Hardwick (1872), L. K. 7 C. P. 473. 
 
 9 (1822), 1 61. & J. 338. Application by certain creditors; cf. 
 O'Reilly v. Rose (1871), 18 Gr. 33; cf. In re and ex parte Gallard 
 (1897), 2 Q. B. 8; 66 L. J. Q. B. 484; 4 Mans. 52, and Rule 14. 
 
 10 (1921), 1 C. B. R, 485; 20 O. W. N. 282 (Middleton, J ), an 
 action by a creditor, which was treated as an application under section 39. 
 
 11 (1921), 1 C. B.-'R. 464 (Panneton, J.), an application by a condi- 
 tional vendor. Duty of trustee to stop sale. Costs. 
 
 ? (1921), 1 C. B. R. 437. Goods of third parties. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 261 
 
 The court has jurisdiction at the instance of an Section 20 
 interim receiver to restrain an authorized trustee, who ~~ 
 has been appointed trustee on the petition of another 
 creditor, from proceeding with the sale of the pro- 
 perty 13 . 
 
 Sections 20(1) (a) and (e) can be read together and 
 confer wide powers. There should therefore in the 
 usual case be no need to apply to the court for an order 
 confirming the terms of the sale". 
 
 The power conferred by section 20(1) (&) is a lim- Section 
 ited one. The business may be carried on only for the 20(1) (&) - 
 purpose of its beneficial winding up; it may not be 
 carried on with the view of making profit by it as a 
 going concern 1 , or with a view to its resuscitation or 
 continuance 2 . But there is power under this section 3 
 to carry on the business in order that a sale may be 
 made of a going concern in a good state for sale* ; and 
 with a view to the sale of the business as a going con- 
 cern, the trustee may carry on the business not merely 
 by completing contracts already entered into 5 , but also 
 
 15 In re Bonneville v. Hollander (1921), 1 C. B. R. 378 (Pannieton, 
 J.). 
 
 14 It is submitted that section 18(d) is hardly intended to authorize 
 such a practice. Such applications have, however, been made : In re 
 Bastien (1921), 1 C. B. R. 457; In re St. Denis Coal and Cartage Co., 
 Ltd. (1921), 1 C. B. R. 469. 
 
 x Ex parte Emmanuel in re Batey (1881), 17 Oh. D. 35; 50 L. J. 
 Ch. 305. 
 
 2 /« re Wreck Recovery and Salvage Co. (1880), L. R. 15 Ch. D. 
 353; 56 L. J. Q. B. 291. Contrast the powers given under section 13. 
 Semble, neither the inspectors nor a majority of the creditors can, 
 against the wishes of a dissenting creditor, give the trustee any greater 
 power than this section confers : Ex parte Emmanuel in re Batey, supra. 
 Nor can the Court (extend the power of the trustee : Ex parte Emmanuel 
 m re Batey, supra; cf. Ex parte Miller- (1840) , 1 M,. D. & D. 39 ; In re 
 Wreck Recovery and Salvage Co., Ltd., supra. 
 
 3 As there would be under » deed assigning an estate to trustees on 
 trust to sell for tb;e benefit of creditors: Quebec Bank v. Snure (I860), 
 16 Gr. 681. 
 
 4 See In re Wreck Recovery & Salvage Co. (1880), L. R. 15 Ch. D. 
 353; 56 L. J. Q. B. 291. Formerly a creditor might insist on a sale 
 though the other course was more advantageous: Ex parte Goring (1790), 
 1 Ves. 169; Ex parte Lyon in re Dumbell (1802), 6 Ves. 617, 622; but 
 see Ex parte Sail in re Sutton (1838), 2 Dea 263. See as to whether 
 tEe Court will restrain a proposed sale: In re Walsh (1859), 9 Tr. Ch. 
 16; Ex parte Montgomery (1822), 1 Gl. & J. 338; In re Atkinson' 
 (1840) , 1 M. D. & D. 238. 
 
 » E Se'e British Wagon Co. v. Lea rf Co. (1880), 5 Q. R. D. 149. 
 
262 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 20 by entering into new contracts 6 . But the trustee may 
 
 ~ not increase the liabilities by making fresh contracts 
 
 bearing a higher rate of interest 7 or materially reduce 
 
 the company's assets by parting with the company's 
 
 right of retainer 8 . 
 
 It has been held in Quebec under The Winding-Up 
 Act that where the liquidators of a construction com- 
 pany have been authorized by the court to complete a 
 construction contract for the benefit of the estate, and, 
 in the work of completion, adopt the prior contract 
 between the company and a sub-contractor for part 
 of the work, the sub-contractor will be entitled to be 
 paid in full for work done after the liquidation, but 
 will rank as a creditor for work done prior thereto 9 . 
 
 It has. been held by Pollock, B., that where a con- 
 tract has been entered into after liquidation proceed- 
 ings have commenced, it is no defence to an action on 
 the contract by the liquidator that the contract was not 
 required for the beneficial winding-up of the business 10 . 
 Whether this case will be followed or not is perhaps 
 open to question ; but it is established that the onus of 
 proof in such a defence rests on the defendant, at least 
 where the contract itself is colourless and does not 
 show that it was not made for the purpose of beneficial 
 winding-up 1 . 
 
 "Hire Purchase Co., Ltd. v. Riohens (1387), 20 Q. B. D. 387. As 
 to the limits ?to the power of the trustee to enter into new contracts or 
 to carry on the business with a view to its being sold as a going' con- 
 cern, see per Jessel, MJR., In re Wreck Recovery & Salvage Co.. (1880), * 
 I/..R. 15 Ch. D. 353; 56 L. J. Q. B. 291. "Necessary" means highly 
 expedient under all the circumstances of the case for the beneficial 
 winding up of the company.. Per Thesiger, L.J., in S. C. • 
 
 "' In re East of England Banking Co. (1868), L. R. 4 Ch. 14, 17. 
 
 'Williams v. Dominion Trust Co. (1916), 31 iD. It. R. 786; 35 
 W. Xj. R. 664. Authority for such action must be found in one of the 
 other sections of the Act. 
 
 "In re Bishop Construction Co., Ltd., Mains v. Garth (1914), 15 
 D. L. R. 911. 
 
 la Bateman & Co. v. Ball (1887), 56 L. J. Q. ~B. 291. 
 
 1 Hire Purchase Co., Ltd. v. Richens (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 387. The 
 trustee is entitled to payment in full for goods supplied after winding-up, 
 whether or not. the contract was entered into before that date : In re Ince 
 Hall Rolling Mills Co. v. Douglas Forge Co. (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 179; as 
 to the funds out of 'which the costs of carrying on the business are to 
 be paid, see In re Asphdltic Wood Pavement Co., Lee & Chapman's Case 
 (1885), 30 Ch. D. 216; In re Oriental Hotels Co., Perry v. Oriental 
 Hotels Co. (1871), L. R. 12 Eq. 126- In re Regents Canal Iron Works 
 Co. ex parte Orissel (1878), 3 Ch. D. 411. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 263 
 
 See as' to the appointment of receivers and man- Section 20 
 agers for the winding-up of a company with assets - 
 beyond the jurisdiction : In re Steel Co. of Canada 2 . 
 
 Where the debtor has continued to carry on his 
 business without the consent of the inspectors, the 
 court has restrained him from so doing on the petition 
 of a. creditor 3 . 
 
 It is important before continuing litigation already Carry on 
 commenced by or against the debtor or before initiat-^gf ^nder 6 * 1 
 ing proceedings that the trustee should understand his 8ec - 2 °( 1 )( c ) 
 position with regard to costs. Subject to the provi- costs, 
 sions of Eule 54(3) the trustee is personally liable for 
 costs whether he sues or is sued 4 in his own name or in 
 bis official name 5 , thus differing from a liquidator 6 , 
 for the trustee cannot charge the creditors personally 
 with the costs unless upon a direct or implied promise 
 of indemnity 1 . But a trustee who has not been guilty 
 of misconduct is entitled to full indemnity out of the 
 trust estate against costs, charges and expenses not 
 improperly incurred even in the case of unsuccessful 
 litigation 2 , though if the trustee appeals and is unsuc- 
 cessful he may be ordered personally to pay the costs 3 . 
 The trustee will "be allowed his costs out of the estate 
 where the question is new and a proper one for him to 
 raise in the interest of the general creditors*. Not- 
 
 2 (1885), W. N, 79. 
 
 'In re Montreal Co-operative Bakery (1921), 1 C. B. R. 37T (Brun- 
 eau, J.). 
 
 'Buchanan v. Smith (1871), 1& Gn 41 ; where a trustee of his own 
 free will makes himself a party to an action outside the Court of Bank- 
 ruptcy there is jurisdiction to make an order on him for the costs : School 
 Board for London v. Wall Bros. (1891), 8 Mor. 202. 
 
 'Macdonald v. Balfour (1898), 20 O. A. R. 404; Smith v. William- 
 son (1889), 13 P. R. 126; In re and ex parte Angerstein (1874), L. R. 
 9 Ch. 479 ; 43 L. J. Bank. 131 ; Ex parte Jenkins In re Glanville (1885) , 
 2 Mor. 71 ; 33 W. R. 523 ; 'Cole v. British Columbia Fur & Trading Co. 
 (1918), 42 O. L. R. 587. 
 
 " Fraser v. Province of Brescia Steam Tramways (1887), 56 ~L. T. 
 771. 
 
 1 Johnston v, Dulmage (1899), 30 O. R. 233. 
 
 2 Pitts v. Lafontaine (1881) , 6 A. C. 482 ; 50 L. J. P. C. 8 ; Smith v. 
 Beal (1894), 25 O. R. 377; Ex parte Goatly m re Jones (1911), 56 Sol. 
 J. 17; Ex parte Gordon in re Bryant (1889), 6 Mor. 262;, Ex partd 
 Joyner, 2 M. & A. 1. 
 
 "Tucker v. Hernaman (1853), 4 DeG. M. & G. 395; In re Butter- 
 worth ex parte Russell (1882), 19 Ch. D. 588; 51 L. J. Ch. 521; Smith 
 v. Beal (1894), 25 O. R. 368. 
 
 'Yale v. Tollerton (1866), 2 Ch. Ch. 49. 
 
264 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 20 withstanding Rule 54(3), it is considered that a. trus~- 
 tee who wishes to make an application to the court 
 the success of which is doubtful, should, before making 
 it, get from the creditors an indemnity against the 
 costs, if he knows there are no assets out of which 
 they can be paid, for if the estate is insufficient he 
 may have to bear them personally 5 . The rule hitherto 
 has been that a trustee is not bound to go on with 
 litigation unless he is satisfied that he has assets suf- 
 ficient for the purpose 6 . Where the trustee enters no 
 appearance to an action against the debtor, costs will 
 not be given against the trustee personally 7 . It has 
 been held that if the' trustee elects to defend an action 
 to which the bankrupt is a party he cannot adopt part 
 of the action and leave out the rest and will be ordered 
 to pay the costs occasioned by such an attempt 8 . The 
 fact that a liquidator who sues in his own name has 
 previously obtained leave to sue will not relieve him of 
 his personal liability for costs; though it may give 
 him a right to be recouped out of the estate if there 
 are assets 9 . 
 
 A trustee in bankruptcy, at least where suing in 
 his official name 10 , and where he has not been deliber- 
 ately selected for the purpose of depriving the defend- 
 ants whom he was about to sue of their power to get 
 costs should they prove successful 11 , will not be ordered 
 to give security for costs even when insolvent 1 . 
 
 * In re and ex parte Angerstein (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 479; 43 L. J. 
 Bank. 479. 
 
 "Eraser v. Province of Brescia Steam Tramways (1887), 56 L. T. 
 771. 
 
 7 Dansk Rekylriffel Syndikat Aktieselskao v. Snell (1908), 2 Ch. 
 127 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 352 ; 15 Mans. 134. It was ield under the Ontario 
 Assignments and Preferences Act that an assignee might be justified in 
 disputing the claim of a plaintiff, but that would not necessarily disen- 
 title the plaintiffs to costs: Zimmerman v. Sproat (1912), 26 0. L. R. 
 448; McLarty v. Todd (1912), 4 O. W. N. 172. 
 
 'Borneman v. Wilson (1884), 28 Ch. D. 53; 54 L. J. Ch. 631. 
 
 'Jackson v. Cannon (1902), 10 B. C. R. 73. 
 
 "Pooley v. Whetham (1885), 28 Ch. D. 38; 54 L. J. Ch. 162. 
 
 "Greener v. Kahn (1906), 2 K, B. 374. as explained in White v. 
 Butt (1909), 1 K. B. 50; 78 L. J. K. B. 65; and Rainoow v. Kittoe 
 (1916), l'Ch. 313. 
 
 Lowell v. Taylor (1885), 31 Ch. D. 34; 55 L. J. Ch. 92: Tars v. 
 Gould (1879), 8 P. R. 31; Major v. MacKenzie (1895), 17 P. R. 18. 
 See as to a case where a creditor is suing under section 35 notes to 
 that section. 
 
 Security for 
 costs. 
 
TBE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 265 
 
 Where the trustee brings action without having section 20 
 first obtained the permission of the inspectors, this Absence of 
 fact cannot be set up as a matter of defence, for the permission 
 
 ...„, . on *"• inspectors 
 
 provision is for the protection of 'the estate on mat- no defence, 
 ters relating to costs, charges and expenses 2 . 
 
 Where the trustee has the permission of the inspec- 
 tors to proceed with an action pending at the time of 
 the assignment no application need be made in Ontario 
 for leave to continue the action. The chose in action 
 having vested in the trustee by the assignment, the 
 trustee should take out a praecipe order under the 
 Ontario Eules to continue proceedings in his official 
 name 3 . 
 
 When a trustee elects not to proceed with an action Effect of 
 which has been commenced by the bankrupt and a n f 1 ^ t elect " 
 stay is entered, a purchaser from the bankrupt of the proceed. ' 
 cause of action will not, without some special circum- 
 stance, be allowed to proceed 4 . Where an action has 
 been brought by the committee of a lunatic and the 
 lunatic is subsequently adjudicated bankrupt, the right 
 of action vests in his trustee in bankruptcy ; and if the 
 trustee declines to prosecute the action, he cannot be 
 added as a defendant against his will. Where he has 
 been so added, he is entitled to have the action stayed 
 as "against himself 5 . But where the trustee elects not 
 to continue a pending action commenced by the debtor, 
 such election in England 6 is not a bar to a subsequent 
 action by the trustee in his representative capacity 
 founded on the same cause of action 7 . 
 
 2 In re Branson ex parte Trustee (1914) , 2 K. B. 701 ; 83 L. J. K. B. 
 1316 ; 21 Mans. 160. 
 
 *In re 1ST. Brenner & Co., Ltd. (1921), 49 O. L. R. 71 ; 19 Ol W. N. 
 445 (Orde, J.) . Judgment signed in the name of the debtor is irregular, 
 S. C. : Brenner v. American Metal Co. (1920) , 1 C. B. R. 375 ; 19 O. W. 
 N. 239; 55 D. L. R. 702 (Latchford, J.). Sae further as to practice: 
 Bank of London v. Wallace (1830), 13 P. R 176; Gage v. Douglas 
 (1891), 14 P. R. 126; Tooke Bros. v. Brock & Patterson (1907), 3 
 E. L. R. 270; McEachren v. Gordon (1899), 18 P. R. 459. See as to 
 English practice notes to sec. 25. 
 
 'Selig v. Lion (1891), 1 Q. B. 513; 60 L. J. Q. B. 403; see In re 
 Arnold ex parte O. R. (1891), 9 Mor. 1; and see as to non-estoppel of 
 liquidator who had elected under the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, 
 not to proceed with an action brought by the debtor: Bennett v. Gamgee 
 (1877), 46 L. J. Ex. 204. 
 
 "Farnham v. Millward & Co. (1895), 2 Ch. 730. 
 
 * Under the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, section 142. 
 
 1 Bennett v. Gamgee (1876) , 2 Ex. D. 11 ; 46 L. J. Ex. 33. 
 
266 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 20 
 
 Extent to 
 which trustee 
 represents 
 creditors. 
 
 Proceedings 
 to be taken 
 only for 
 benefit of 
 estate in 
 general. 
 
 Rights of 
 action pass- 
 ing to the 
 trustee. 
 
 Power to 
 employ 
 solicitor or 
 other agent 
 under sec. 
 20(l)(d). 
 
 As to the extent to which the trustee represents the 
 creditors in cases in which the creditors could impeach 
 transactions which the bankrupt himself would be 
 stopped from impeaching 8 , see chapter VI. where the 
 matter is fully discussed. 
 
 Where the result of recovering property alleged to 
 have been delivered to a creditor by way of fraudulent 
 preference would not be for the benefit of the credi- 
 tors at large but of an individual creditor who claims 
 a security on it, the trustee ought not to take proceed- 
 ings for the recovery of the property himself, nor will 
 the individual creditor be allowed to take them in his 
 own name 9 . 
 
 The rights of action which pass to the trustee are 
 indicated in the notes to section 25 10 . 
 
 Where a trustee wishes to continue an action 
 already commenced by the debtor he should, if the 
 right of action is one which has passed to him under 
 the assignment or receiving order, obtain the permis- 
 sion in writing of the inspectors and then take out a 
 praecipe order to continue 1 . 
 
 By section 20(1) (d), the trustee may employ a 
 solicitor or other agent to take- any proceedings or 
 do any business which may be sanctioned by the 
 inspectors. 
 
 'Anderson v. Maltoy (1793), 2 Ves, 244, 255; 4 Bro. C. C. 422; 
 In re Barrett (1880), 5 O. A. E. 206. 
 
 'Ex parte Cooper m re Zucco (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 510; 44 L. J. 
 Bank. 121; Wilmott v. London Celluloid Co. (1886), 34 Ch. D. 147; 56 
 
 l. j. ch. sa 
 
 10 The effect of the bankruptcy of the plaintiff or defendant on pending 
 actions will vary in different jurisdictions in cases not touched by the 
 provisions of sections 6(1) and 7(1) (2). See as to the case of plaintiff 
 suing on behalf of himself -and all other creditors: Wolff v. Tan Boolen 
 (1906), 94 L. T. 502, and cf. Dunn v. Irwin (1875), 25 U. C. C. P. HI; 
 plaintiff in England adjudicated bankrupt: Warder v. Saunders (1882), 
 10 Q. B. D. 114; Jackson v. N. E. Railway (1877), 5 Ch. D. 844; 
 46 L. J. Ch. 723 ; action by committee of lunatic who is subsequently 
 adjudicated bankrupt: Farnham v. Millward (1895), 2 Ch. 730; 64 h. 3. 
 Ch. 816. 
 
 1 In re Brenner & Co., Ltd. (1920) , 19 O. W. N. 445 ; Ontario Rules 
 300-302. In the earlier case of Brenner v. American Metal Go. (1920), 
 19 O. W. N. 239, leave was given to continue. No leave to proceed is 
 necessary so far as the insolvency proceedings are concerned : In re Bren- 
 ner £ Co., Ltd., supra. The action will be proceeded with in the official 
 name of the trustee: Ibid. After an assignment has been made judg- 
 ment entered in the name of the assignor is irregular, B.O., citing Jack- 
 son v. North Eastern R. W. Co. (1877), 5 Ch. D. 844. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 267 
 
 This section .should be read with subsection 2'0(2) Section 20 
 which states that the permission is not to be a general — 
 permission. 
 
 It would seem that the creditors cannot override 
 the directions given by the inspectors for the employ- 
 ment of a particular solicitor 2 . But where one of the 
 inspectors is the managing clerk of a solicitor, it 
 would on general principles be improper to appoint 
 that solicitor as solicitor to the trustee 3 . 
 
 The inspectors in giving permission to the trustee inspectors 
 to employ a solicitor have power to limit the amoun 1 ^J,, 1 ™^ 
 of costs which mav be incurred*. Where the amount ? osts t( > De 
 
 . . incurred 
 
 of the costs to be incurred has been limited, the taxing 
 master cannot allow as against the bankrupt's estate 
 a larger sum than the amount so limited 5 , unless the 
 limit of costs to be incurred upon the work originally 
 authorized has been extended by the inspectors 6 . 
 Semble, the limit of costs can be extended even after 
 the work has been completed 7 . Where there has been 
 no permission of the inspectors to employ a solicitor, 
 the solicitor's bill of costs cannot be taxed or paid out 
 of the bankrupt's estate 8 . 
 
 The permission in writing 9 of the inspectors which Absence of 
 is required is a provision for the protection of the of inspectors 
 estate as between the trustee and the estate-, and does £° defence 
 not furnish any defence to any proceeding instituted 
 by the trustee without that permission 10 . 
 
 When permission .is given from time to time to the Bringing in 
 solicitor to transact separate matters of business and^t^. 
 a limit of costs in each case is fixed, the solicitor 
 should bring in his bills showing the work done under 
 
 'In re Salmon ex parte O. R. (1916), 2 K. B. 510; In re Geiger 
 (1915), 1 K. B. 439. Contrast In re Consolidated Diesel Engine Mfrs., 
 Ltd. (1915), 1 Ch. 192. 
 
 'In re and ex parte Gallard (1896), 1 Q. B. 6S; 65 L. J. Q. B. 199 ; 
 2 Mans. 515. 
 
 4 In re Duncan ex parte 0. R. (1892), 1 Q. B. 879 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 
 712 ; 9 Mor. 61. 
 
 "In re Duncan, supra. 
 
 'In re Lawrence & Porter ex parte 0. R. (1910), 55 Sol. J. 94. 
 
 7 In re Lawrence, supra. 
 
 'In re Geiger (1915), 1 K. B. 439. 
 
 Formerly the permission was not required to be in writing : In re 
 Vavasour (1900) , 2 Q. B. 309 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 685 ; 7 Mans. 262. 
 
 10 In re Branson ex parte Trustee (1914) , 2 K. B. 701 ; 83 L. J. K. B. 
 1310 ; 21 Mans. 160. 
 
268 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACJT. 
 
 Section 20 each, authorization. If he lumps the .work in one hill 
 "so that it is impossible to see whether the sanction has 
 been exceeded in any case, the bankrupt on his dis- 
 charge may move to reopen the- taxation, even where 
 the sum total of the authorizations is greater than the 
 total of the bill of costs. 11 Where a solicitor properly 
 employed does only administrative work he is not 
 entitled to charge solicitor's fees, but only such charges 
 as are fair and reasonable having regard to the work 
 done 1 . 
 Trustee per- The trustee is personally liable to the solicitor for 
 to th^soiki- 6 his proper costs irrespective of the assets in his hands 2 , 
 tor for for the solicitor's claim for payment is only against 
 his own client the trustee who retained him 3 . There- 
 fore if either the solicitor or the trustee has been 
 guilty of misconduct, the court can refuse to allow 
 the solicitor's costs to be paid out of the estate, not- 
 withstanding that the costs have been taxed and an 
 allocatur made by the taxing officer 4 . 
 
 The solicitor has a lien on all documents the fruits 
 of his own labour or expense 5 , and on what is recov- 
 ered in an action, even though the recovery of the sum 
 was not the direct result of the action . If the solicitor 
 constitutes himself a trustee for the creditors he will 
 not be entitled to a lien for costs on moneys paid into 
 his hands for a specific purpose 7 . A solicitor may not 
 on the ground of his lien refuse to produce for exami- 
 nation by the trustee documents in his possession 8 , 
 
 11 In re and ex parte Yeatman (1916) , 1 K. B. 780 ; 85 L. J. K. B. 
 789; 3 H. B. R. 30. 
 
 *ln re Pry or ex parte Board of Trade (1888), 59 L. T. 256; 
 5 Mor. 232. 
 
 'Ex parte Goates in re Wooding (1833), 3 D.-& 0. 626; 1 M. & A. 
 328 ; but the trustee is entitled to payment out of the estate unless the 
 judge otherwise directs: Rule 54(3). 
 
 'Ex parte Harper in re Pooley (1882), 20 Ch. ID. 685; 51 L. J. Oh. 
 810. 
 
 4 Ex parte Harper in re Pooley, supra. 
 
 'Ex parte Yalden in re Austin (1876), 4 Ch. D, 129; 46 L. J. Bank. 
 59 ; and see as to title deeds deposited with him by the bankrupt before 
 his bankruptcy, Ex parte Calvert in re Messenger (1876), 3 Ch. D. 317; 
 45 L. J. Bank. 134. 
 
 8 Guy v.' Churchill (1887), 35 Ch. D. 489. 
 
 7 Ex parte Newland in re Clark (1876), 4 Ch. D. 515. 
 
 8 In re Toleman & England ex parte Bramble (1880) , 13 Ch. D. 885. 
 
 Solicitor's 
 lien. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 269 
 
 nor is he entitled to a lien on the books of account of . Section ao 
 the debtor . 
 
 Quaere, whether a solicitor properly employed by Application 
 the trustee can apply- direct to the court for payment fo/payment. 
 of his bill of costs out of the estate, or whether he 
 should not apply for leave to use the name of the 
 trustee 10 . 
 
 The court will exercise a summary jurisdiction overC° ur t e ? er .- 
 a solicitor when he is acting as an officer of the court 1 , turnover 
 
 It is settled practice not to allow a bankrupt to 
 
 solicitor. 
 
 intervene in or take part in the proceedings unless may not* 
 there are circumstances which justify a special order jXrvfne 
 in his favour 2 . But in a proper case the court has a 
 discretion to allow a bankrupt to attend on the taxa- 
 tion of costs 3 .. 
 
 Sections 20(1) (g)(h) refer to the compromise of Compromise 
 claims in favour of or" against the debtor which arose(i)^ ( s |)'^y 
 prior to the bankruptcy or assignment; while section 
 20(1) (i) will cover cases arising since the trustee took 
 over the administration of the estate. 
 
 The court is under no obligation even where the Duty of 
 matter is extremely complicated and difficult to under- ^"^^ 
 stand, to give directions in the matter of a proposed settle terms 
 compromise. It is the duty of the trustee as a man of promise, 
 business to decide whether a compromise is reasonable 
 or not, and the inspectors also must form their opinion 
 upon the matter. When any persons concerned object 
 to the terms of the proposed compromise it is for them 
 to satisfy the court that it ought not to be made*. 
 
 Although under the Canadian Act the trustee whoTrustee may 
 has the consent of the inspectors to a proposed com- approval of 
 
 compromise. 
 
 'Rule i45. 
 
 "Ex parte WingfieU and Blew in re Bright (1903) , 1 K. B. 735 ; 72 
 L. J. K. B. 287; 10 Mans. 31; and see ex parte Haynes in re Ring 
 (1821), 1 G. & J. 35; and ex parfe Coates in re Wooding (1833), 3 D, 
 
 6 C. 626 ; 1 M. & A. 328. 
 
 x Ex parte Bull in re Ditchman (1833), 3 D. & C. 116. 
 2 In re Geiger (1915), 1 K. B. 439. 
 
 "In re Duncan ex parte 0. R. (1892), 1 Q. B. 879 ; 61 h. J. Q. B. 
 712 ; 9 Mor. 61 ; In re Vavasour (1900) , 2 Q. B. 309 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 685 ; 
 
 7 Mans. 262 ; In re Geiger (1915) , supra; In re and ex parte Yeatman 
 (1916), IK. B. 780. 
 
 * Ex parte Salaman in re Pilling (1906) , 2 K. B. 644 ; 75 L. J. K. B. 
 7?0- i^ Mans. 229. But the trustee may apply in administrative matters; 
 sec. 18(d). 
 
270 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 20 
 
 Bankrupt 
 usually has 
 
 no locus 
 standi. 
 
 Effect of 
 absence of 
 permission 
 of inspectors. 
 
 Compromise 
 of contingent 
 claims. 
 
 promise is in a much stronger position than the trustee 
 under the English Act 5 , he may be well advised in some 
 cases to apply to the court for approval of the proposed 
 compromise 6 . Where there are joint and separate 
 estates and a compromise has been agreed to by the 
 separate creditors but the joint creditors object to it, 
 the court will sanction the compromise where the 
 separate creditors are the only persons really inter- 
 ested, and there is no proof that it is too advantageous 
 to the persons with whom it is to be carried out, and 
 the settlement will free the estate from expense 7 . It 
 is not a bona fide compromise or one which the trustee 
 should enter into without the approval of the court, 
 to settle a claim which has been rejected by the court, 
 on the terms that the costs of the claimant and the 
 opposing creditors should both be paid, even when the 
 claimant has appealed from the. decision of the court 8 . 
 
 As the trustee has the power to compromise a doubt- 
 ful claim by agreeing to admit the claim at a less 
 amount by way of settling the doubt, the bankrupt will 
 usually have no locus standi to dispute his action. But 
 there is a limit to this rule, and where, in an estate 
 which might be expected to yield a surplus over the 
 proved debts, the trustee compromised a very large 
 claim on- terms which but very slightly reduced the 
 dividends of the creditors, but left the debtor nothing 
 at all, the bankrupt was held entitled to, have the claim 
 in question fully investigated 9 . 
 
 Where a compromise has been made by the trustee 
 with a creditor or debtor of the bankrupt, it would 
 seem that the creditor or debtor of the bankrupt can- 
 not afterwards set up the fact that the consent of the 
 inspectors was not first obtained 10 . 
 
 It has been held under the Winding-up Act that a 
 
 See notes to section 20(1) ante, and see section 88a. 
 
 "See Ex parte Hurlbatt in re Ridgeway (1890), 61 L.-T. 647; 
 6 Mor. 277 ; Ex parte Glass in re Macfadyen (1908) , W ; N. 13 ; Ex parte 
 Edmunds in re Green (1886), 53^. T. 967 ; 2 Mor. 294. 
 
 * Ex parte Clark in re Ridgeway (1891), 8 Mor, 289. 
 
 8 Ex parte Edmunds in re Green, supra. 
 
 9 In re and ex parte Austin (1876) , 4 Ch. D. 13 ; 46 U J. Bank. 1. 
 
 10 Cycle Makers' Co. v. Sim (1903), 1 E. B. 477 ; and see Leemmg v. 
 Murray (1879), 13 Ch. D. 123; 48 L. J. Ch. 737, decided on the Act 
 of 1869. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. '271 
 
 liquidator may compromise or deal with contingent Section 20 
 as well as with other claims 1 . 
 
 The wording of section 20(1) (k) is not clear. It Disclaimer 
 is difficult to see how the trustee can disclaim a lease ^fl] ^T' 
 in property forming part of the estate of the debtor ; 
 but section 20 (1) (k) is no doubt intended to be read 
 with section 52. 
 
 An appointment as "the solicitor to act for and onSec.20(2). 
 behalf of the trustee in all actions, proceedings, and Permission 
 
 t .. t n 1 • j_i • j_ j_* must not be 
 
 applications, and generally herein on the instructions a general 
 of the trustee" is not specific enough to sanction tax- permission, 
 ation of the solicitor's costs for (1) attendance on the 
 public examination of the bankrupt by counsel, (2) 
 opposition to the bankrupt's discharge by counsel, 
 (3) bringing actions against certain debtors to the 
 estate 2 . 
 
 An authority "That Messrs. A. & Co. be employed 
 by the trustee where necessary" does not comply with 
 the section 3 . The section calls for an authority to take 
 particular proceedings or to conduct particular business 
 in the bankruptcy. The authority may be so worded 
 as to cover any number of proceedings or any number 
 of pieces of business so long as it specifies the par- 
 ticular matters. But it is not necessary that a specific 
 authority be produced f pr every step in an action 4 . 
 
 Qucere, whether the deed or transfer from the trus- Sec. 20(3)(a) 
 tee to the purchaser is a "document made or executed Sales of 
 under authority of this Act" within the meaning of ££? trustee 7 
 section 11(4). 
 
 It has been held that an ordinary sale en bloc of all 
 unrealized assets of the estate will not, without more, 
 transfer to the purchaser any right of action which the 
 trustee may have to set aside as invalid warehouse 
 receipts hot objected to by the trustee 6 . It was said in 
 a case under a former Canadian Act, that a trustee 
 cannot transfer the right of action to avoid a rnort- 
 
 * In re Stratford Fuel Ice Construction Co., Coughlin & Irwin's Claim 
 (1913), 28 O. L. K. 481, 48T. 
 
 2 Ex parte Nichols in re White (1902), W. N. 114. 
 "In re Vavasour (1900), 2 Q. B. 309; 69 L. J. Q. B. 685; 7 Mans. 
 262. 
 
 * In re Vavasour (1900) , 2 Q. B. 309 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 685 ; 7 Mans. 
 262. 
 
 'Mason v. Merchants 1 Bank (1877), 27 U. C. C. P. 383. 
 
272 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Sec. 20(3) (6) 
 
 Section 21 gage which he could have avoided in the interest of 
 creditors 7 , but section 35 now gives the creditor the 
 right to take proceedings in the name of the trustee in 
 matters which in his opinion would be for the benefit of 
 the estate. 
 
 See as to fraudulent seizures of land under execu- 
 tion in -Quebec, Criminal Code, E. S. C. 1906, c. 146, s. 
 42'3 ; as to forced sales of immoveables in Quebec, Civil 
 Code, Arts. 1585 to 1591, and Code of Civil Procedure, 
 Chap. XXX., particularly Arts. 735-788; E. S. Q. 
 1909, Arts. 7552-7557; 1919, c. 70 (Art. 7554); 1918, 
 c. 79 (Art. 700a); 1915, c. 85; 1906, c. 42, s. 8 (Art. 
 1352). 
 
 Power to 
 allow bank- 
 rupt to 
 manage 
 property. 
 
 Allowance 
 to bankrupt. 
 
 21. The trustee, with the permission in writing 
 of the inspectors, may appoint the debtor 
 himself to superintend, the management of 
 the property of the debtor or any part 
 thereof, or carry on the trade (if any) of 
 the debtor for the benefit of his creditors, 
 and in any other respect to aid in adminis- 
 tering the property in such manner and on 
 such terms as the trustee may direct, and 
 may, with like permission, make from time 
 to time such allowance as he may think just 
 to the debtor out of his property for the 
 support of the debtor and his family, or in 
 consideration of his services, if he is engaged 
 in winding-up his estate, but any such allow- 
 ance may be reduced by the court. 
 
 Cross References Act: Trustee may carry on the business for the 
 beneficial winding-up of the same, 20(1) (6) ; permission of inspectors, 
 20 ; inspectors generally, 43. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, ss. 57, 58 ; Canadian 
 Act, 1875, s. 89. 
 
 Where a receiver is appointed by the court, he has 
 power to employ the debtor to assist him 8 . 
 
 ' Per Gwynne, J., in Bertram v. Pendry (1877) , 27 U. C. C. P. 371 ; 
 and see Seear v. Lawson (1880), 15 Ch. D. 426; 49 L. J. Bank. 69; and 
 rights of action, see notes to 20(1) (a), 20(1) (c), section 17, and 
 section 25. 
 
 "Ex parte Gordon in re Gomersall (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 291; 44 
 L. J. Bank. 97. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 273 
 
 When the bankrupt carries on the business with the Section 21 
 sanction of the trustee, he becomes his agent and is bankrupt 
 entitled to an indemnity against liabilities incurred in ^^| on 
 such trading ; but not when he trades without the know- 
 ledge of the trustee 9 . Where a bankrupt trades with- 
 out the knowledge of the trustee any property which 
 he may acquire by so trading will, subject to the pro- 
 visions of section 34, pass to the creditors under the 
 bankruptcy 10 , but if the trustee permits him to trade 
 or carry on business and knowingly allows him to 
 treat with new creditors who, in ignorance of his cir- 
 cumstances, deal with him upon the faith of his ability 
 to contract, especially where he has changed his trade 
 or place of carrying it on, the new creditors have a 
 right to be paid out of the newly acquired assets in 
 priority to the creditors under the bankruptcy 1 . Where 
 the bankrupt trades with the knowledge of the trustee, 
 the new creditors if unsecured must enforce their 
 rights before the bankrupt disposes of his property; 
 for if the property is sold and the proceeds paid to the 
 trustee they will have no lien on them 2 . 
 
 It may be that if the bankrupt is employed to carry 
 on his trade and is from time to time paid money by 
 the trustee, this is evidence of such a contract between 
 him and the trustee as will enable him to recover on a 
 quantum meruit 3 . 
 
 The allowance which the trustee is authorized to Allowance 
 make to the bankrupt may consist of furniture and todebtor - 
 
 'Ex parte Kearley m re Clark (1889)-, 60 L. T. 335 ; 6 Mor. 42. 
 
 10 Ex parte Ford m re Caughey (1875), 1 Ch. D. 521; In re Clark 
 ex parte Beardmore (1894), 2 Q. B. 393; 63 L. J. Q. B. 806; 1 Mans. 
 207. 
 
 1 Troughton v. Gitley (1766) , Amb. 630 ; Engleoach v. Nixon 
 (1875), L. R. 10 C. P. 645; 44 L. J. C. P. 396; Tucker v. Hernaman 
 (1853), 4 DeG. M. & G. 395; 22 L. J. Ch. 791; In re Burr ex parte 
 Pannell (1901), 84 L. T. 327; Ex parte Bolland in re Dysart (1878), 9 
 Ch. D. 312 ; 47 L. J. Bank. 74. There is no Canadian section dealing 
 with the disposition of assets in a second bankruptcy. See English 
 section 39. Creditors who do not share under a composition, but post- 
 pone their debts until after the discharge of the debtor, do not lose the 
 right to receive dividends with the new creditors in a subsequent bank- 
 ruptcy : Ex parte Russell im re Winn (1876), 2 Ch. D. 424; 45 L. J. 
 Bank. 85. 
 
 z Ex parte Rooertson in re Magnus (1S73), L. Br. 8 'Ch. 962. 
 
 'Coles v. Barrow (1813), 4 Taunt. 774. 
 
 B.O.— 18 
 
274 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT: 
 
 Section 22 
 
 other property, which when properly allotted to the 
 bankrupt gives him title to the property and the right 
 to dispose of it as he sees fit*. 
 
 Protection of 
 trustee from 
 personal 
 liability in 
 certain cages. 
 
 Inspection of 
 goods held 
 in pledge. 
 
 22 (1) Where the trustee has' seized or dis- 
 posed of any property in the possession or 
 on the premises of a debtor against whom a 
 receiving order has been made or by whom 
 an authorized assignment has been made, 
 without notice of any claim by any person 
 in respect of such property and it is there- 
 after made to appear that the property was 
 not at the date of the making of said receiv- 
 ing order or assignment the property of the 
 debtor, the trustee shall not be personally 
 liable for any loss or damage arising from 
 such seizure or disposal sustained pj any 
 person claiming such property, nor for the 
 costs of any proceedings taken to establish 
 a claim thereto, unless the court is of opinion 
 that the trustee has been guilty of negligence 
 in respect of the same. 
 
 (2) Where any goods of a debtor against whom 
 ■ a receiving order has been made or by whom 
 
 an authorized assignment has been made, are 
 held by any person by way of pledge, pawn, 
 or other security, it shall be lawful for the 
 trustee, after giving notice in writing of his 
 intention to do so, to inspect the goods, and, 
 where such notice has been given, such per- 
 son as aforesaid shall not be entitled to 
 realize his security until he has given the - 
 trustee a reasonable opportunity of inspect- 
 ing the goods and of exercising his right of 
 redemption if he thinks fit to do so. 
 
 (3) Where any goods in the charge or posses- 
 sion of a debtor at the time when a receiving 
 order or an authorized assignment is made 
 
 'Brown v. Hickmiotham (1881), 50 L. J. Q. B. 426. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 275 
 
 are alleged to be in his charge or possession section 22 
 subject to the ownership or a special or gene- person 
 ral property right, or right of possession in j^ming'to 
 another person, and whether or not such own goods in 
 goods are held by the debtor under or subject possesion of 
 to the terms of any lien, consignment, agree- d f v b ei5 X S s 
 ment, hire receipt, or order, or any agree- notice to 
 ment providing or implying that the owner- intention to 
 ship of, property in, or right to possession J^ V6 
 of such goods, or other or like goods in ex- 
 change or substitution, shall vest in or pass 
 to the debtor only upon payment of defined 
 or undefined moneys, or upon performance 
 or abstention from perf ormarice of any acts 
 or conditions, the person alleged or claiming 
 to own such goods or such special or general 
 property or right of possession therein or 
 thereof shall not, by himself or his agents 
 or servants, nor shall his agents or servants, 
 . remove or attempt to remove such goods or 
 any thereof out of the charge or posses- 
 sion of the debtor, or of the authorized trus- 
 tee or any actual custodian thereof, until the 
 - . elapse of fifteen days after delivering notice 
 in writing to the trustee of intention to so 
 remove. It shall not be implied from these 
 provisions that the rights of others than the 
 - trustee have been thereby in any manner 
 extended. 
 
 Cross References Act: Property defined, 2(dd) ; property 
 vesting in trustee, 6(3), 10, 25; proof by secured creditors, 46; penalty 
 for removing debtor's goods without notice, 97. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, ss. 61, 59. 
 
 Section 22(3) was first enacted, by sec' 21 of The 
 Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921. 
 
 What is the property of the debtor may depend 
 partly- on provincial law 5 . 
 
 'See In re Barrett (1880), 5 O. A.' K. 206, 214, and notes to 
 sections 25 and 32. 
 
276 
 
 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Sections 
 23,24 
 
 Books to be 
 kept by 
 trustee. 
 
 23. The authorized trustee of a bankrupt or 
 assignor shall keep, in manner prescribed, 
 proper books, in which he shall from time 
 to time cause to be made entries or minutes 
 of proceedings at meetings, and of such 
 other matters as may be prescribed, and 
 any creditor of the bankrupt or authorized 
 assignor may, subject to the control of the 
 court, personally or by his agent inspect any 
 such books. 
 
 Cross References Act: Trustee to take possession of books of 
 account of debtor, 17(1); minutes of proceedings, 42(8), 77(1) (2); 
 offence of failing to observe provisions of the Act, 96(c) ; inspection 
 of debtor's statement of affairs, 54(2). 
 
 Cross References Rules: Trustee to keep documents after his 
 discharge, 110 ; no person to withhold from trustee books of account of 
 debtor, 145 ; trustee to keep for six years all current books of record, 110. 
 
 Analogous Section: English Act, 1914, s. 86 ; Canadian Act, 
 1875, s, 41. 
 
 The rules do not prescribe what books are required 
 to be kept. Under the English Rules the trustee is 
 required to keep a Eecord Book and a Cash Book. In 
 the Eecord Book are to be recorded all minutes, and 
 all proceedings had, and resolutions passed at any 
 meeting of creditors or inspectors and all such matters 
 as may be necessary to give a correct view of his 
 administration of the estate. In the Cash Book he is 
 required to enter from day to day the receipts and 
 payments made 6 . A debtor has no right in England 
 to inspect the trustee's "Eecord Book," nor has the 
 court power to give him leave to do so 7 . 
 
 Report to 
 creditors by 
 trustee. 
 
 24 (1) The authorized trustee of a bankrupt 
 or assignor shall from time to time report, — 
 (a) when required by the inspectors, to 
 
 every creditor ; and, 
 (&). when required by any specific creditor, 
 
 to such creditor, 
 
 • E. Eules 360, 361 ; and see E. R. 337, as to trading accounts. 
 1 In re and ex parte Solomons (1904), 2 K. B. 917; 73 L. >T. K. B. 
 1029; 11 Mans. 345. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 277 
 
 showing tihe condition of the debtor's estate, section 24 
 the moneys on hand, if any, and particulars _ 
 of any property remaining unsold. The 
 trustee shall be entitled to charge against 
 the estate of the debtor, for the preparation 
 and delivery of any such report, only his 
 actual disbursements. 
 
 (2) The authorized trustee of a bankrupt or Documents 
 assignor (but not the trustee under a com- f° r ^ arde d 
 position, extension or arrangement of a t0 ° ttawa - 
 debtor's debts or affairs) shall promptly 
 
 after their receipt or preparation mail to the 
 Dominion Statistician, Department of 
 Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, a true copy 
 . of- 
 
 (a) the notice referred to in subsection four 
 
 of section eleven of this Act ; 
 (&) the statement referred to in subsection 
 
 one of section fifty-four of this Act ; 
 
 (c) 'the abstract of receipts and disburse- 
 ments and the dividend sheet referred to 
 in subsection two of section thirty-seven 
 of this Act ; 
 
 (d) every order made by the court upon the 
 application for discharge of any bank- 
 rupt or authorized assignor ; and, 
 
 (e) the statement prepared by the trustee 
 upon which a final dividend is declared. 
 
 (/) any order made under subsection eigh- 
 teen of section thirteen of this Act annul- 
 ling any adjudication of bankruptcy. 
 
 (3) Any person shall be entitled to examine Right to 
 and make copies of all or any of the docu- examme - 
 ments mentioned in subsection two hereof, 
 which are in the possession of the trustee. 
 
 Cross References Act: Remuneration of trustee, 40(1) (2) (3) ; 
 taxation of trustee's disbursements, 40(4). 
 
 Cross References Rules: Costs, taxation and fees, 54 to 62. 
 
 Section 24(2) (b) was first enacted by sec. 2'2 of 
 The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921. 
 
278 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Administration of. Estate. 
 
 section as 25. The property of the debtor divisible 
 
 Description amongst Ms creditors (in this Act referred 
 
 property 1 * 8 to as the property of the debtor) shall not 
 
 divisible comprise the following particulars : — 
 
 amongst ■ • , 
 
 creditors. (i) Property held by the debtor in trust 
 
 for any other person; 
 (ii)Any property which as against the 
 debtor is exempt from execution or 
 seizure Under legal process in accord- 
 ance with the laws of the province 
 within which the property is situate 
 and within which the debtor resides. 
 But it shall comprise the following particulars : 
 
 (a) All such property as may belong to or 
 be vested in the debtor at the date of the 
 presentation of any bankruptcy petition or 
 at the date of the execution of an autho- 
 rized assignment, and, in the case of a 
 bankrupt, all property which may be 
 acquired by or devolve on him before his 
 discharge ; and, 
 
 (b) The capacity to exercise and to take 
 proceedings for exercising all such powers 
 in or over or in respect of the property as 
 might have been exercised by the debtor 
 for his own benefit at the date of said 
 petition or assignment, or, in the case of 
 such bankrupt, before his discharge. 
 
 Cross References Act: Property defined, 2(dd) ; property vest- 
 ing in trustee on making of R. O., 6(3) ; on making of A. A., 10; rela- 
 tion back of bankruptcy, 4(10) ; R. O. and A. A- take precedence of 
 process, 11(1) (10) ; R. O. and A. A. not within operation of provincial 
 enactments, 11(4) ; presentation of bankruptcy petition, 4(4) ; discharge, 
 58 et seq.j proof of "debts, 45, 46 ; debts provable, 44 ; examination as to 
 subsequently acquitted property, 56(1). 
 
 Cross References Rules: Presentation of bankruptcy petition, 76. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts, 1914, s: 38; 1883, s. 44. 
 Canadian Acts, 1875, s. 16; 1869, s. 10. American Acts, 1898, s. 70; 
 1867, s. 14; R. S., s. 5044; 1841, s. 3 ; 1860, ss. 10, 11, 17, 27, 50. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 279 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Description of Debtor's Property Divisible Amongst Creditors. 
 
 I. General scope of the section. Section 25 
 II. Position of the trustee as compared with that of debtor. 
 
 A. Position of trustee is both inferior and superior to that of 
 
 debtor. 
 
 B. The trustee takes the property for payment of creditors, but 
 
 the bankrupt has no right to intervene. 
 
 C. But he has a right to his surplus assets. 
 
 D. A debtor may not encumber the profits of his business. 
 III. Trustee's right as against prior trustee. 
 
 IV. Property which does not vest in the trustee for division among 
 creditors. 
 
 A. Property held by debtor in trust for any other person — 
 
 1. Prpperty held by debtor as bare trustee. 
 
 2. Property held in fiduciary capacity by factor, etc. 
 
 3. Trust funds mixed with others. 
 
 ' 4. Property which the debtor "believed he held as trustee. 
 
 B. Property exempt from execution or seizure. 
 
 C. Interests defeasible on bankruptcy — 
 
 1. Rights of trustee on defeasance. 
 
 2. Trustee takes what bankrupt entitled to ; contingent interests. 
 . D. Rights of action which do not pass to the trustee. 
 
 E. After acquired property passes to the trustee in a qualified 
 
 sense. 
 
 F. The court may order the trustee as its officer to return certain 
 
 property. 
 V. Property which vests in the trustee for division among creditors — 
 
 A. Property of the debtor at the date of the presentation of any 
 
 petition, etc. 
 
 B. The object of the bankruptcy law. 
 
 C. What is property is defined in the Act, but it also depends on 
 
 provincial law — 
 
 1. Rights of action which do and do not pass to the trustee. 
 
 (a) Rights of action founded in contract. 
 
 (i) Contracts in fieri for personal services. 
 
 (ii) Personal earnings of bankrupt. 
 (6) Rights of action founded in tort, 
 (c) Whether a cause of action may be split. 
 (<j) Person suing on behalf of himself and other creditors, 
 (e) Practice as regards plaintiffs and defendants. 
 
 (i) Plaintiff becoming bankrupt. 
 
 (ii) Defendant becoming bankrupt. 
 
 2. Contracts with the debtor — 
 
 (a) Contracts not necessarily terminated by bankruptcy. 
 (6) Disclaimer of onerous contracts or property, 
 (c) Position of trustee who completes a contract with his 
 own money. 
 
 3. Shares. 
 
 4. Alleged gifts. 
 
 5. Miscellaneous matters. 
 
 D. The trustee should perfect his title to a chose in action. 
 
 E. After-acquired property. 
 
 P. The capacity to exercise powers. 
 
 Section 25 is one of the most important sections of i. General 
 the Act. It has been taken from the corresponding lectionf 
 
280 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 25 
 
 II. Position 
 of the trus- 
 tee as com- 
 pared with 
 that of 
 debtor. 
 
 A. 
 It is 1 both 
 inferior. 
 
 English section 8 which, however, only, applies where 
 ' there has been an adjudication of bankruptcy, for 
 there is no such thing as an authorized assignment 
 under the English Act 9 . Under the English Act the 
 property of the debtor vests in the trustee when the 
 debtor is adjudged bankrupt, not as under the Cana- 
 dian Act when a receiving order is made.. Section 25 
 must be read with section 6(3) and with section 4(10), 
 the former of which treats of the vesting of the pro- 
 perty of the debtor in the trustee, the latter of the 
 relation back of the bankruptcy of the debtor, what- 
 ever that may mean. The relation back of the title 
 of the trustee, the meaning and effect of which are 
 treated in the notes to section 4(10), is brought about 
 by reading section 6(3) which vests "the property of 
 the debtor" in the trustee, with section 2'5, which says: 
 ' ' The property of the debtor divisible among his credi- 
 tors (in this Act referred to as the property of the 
 debtor) . . . shall comprise all such property as 
 may belong to or be vested in the debtor at the. date of 
 the presentation of any bankruptcy petition. ' ' 
 
 Generally speaking, all the property of the bank- 
 rupt vests in the trustee, as the legal representative 
 of the debtor 1 ; but he takes it subject to all rights and 
 equities to which it was subject while held by the 
 debtor 2 . In some respects, however, the trustee is in 
 an inferior position to the bankrupt, in others he 
 occupies a superior position. 
 
 As to the inferior position of the trustee : — 
 
 1. He does not take property which the debtor holds 
 in trust for any other person 3 . 
 
 2. Nor does he take certain property which is 
 exempt from seizure under execution 4 . 
 
 "Section 38. 
 
 9 See, however, provisions with respect to a debtor's petition, sections 
 3 and 6 ; and see English Deeds of Arrangement Act, 4-5 Geo. V. c. 47. 
 
 r In re Maplebach ex parte iCaldecott (1S76), 4 Ch. D. 150; 13 Cox. 
 374. See Chapter VI. 
 
 2 In re Clark ex parte Beardmore (1894) , 2 Q. B. 393 ; 63 h. J. Q. B. 
 806; 12 Mans. 207; see Chapter VI. and notes to sections 17, 6(3) and 
 10. 
 
 "Section 25(1). 
 
 •Section 25 (ii). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 281 
 
 3. He does not take property of the debtor which is Section 25 
 subject to a gift over on bankruptcy. ~~ 
 
 4. Certain rights of action do not pass to the trus- 
 tee. 
 
 5. With respect to property acquired by the debtor 
 after the making of the receiving order, the trustee 
 must intervene in order to perfect his title 5 . 
 
 6. In certain cases the trustee as an officer of the 
 court will not be allowed to retain property which the 
 debtor might have retained. 
 
 On the other hand the position of the trustee is And superior 
 superior to that of the debtor in several respects: — aebtor tof 
 
 1. The relation back of his title avoids transactions 
 which the debtor could not avoid 6 . 
 
 2. As the' representative of the creditors he may 
 impeach transactions which are in fraud of creditors, 
 or which prefer a creditor or creditors to the others 7 . 
 
 3. In the same capacity he may in England impeach 
 other transactions which are either contrary to the 
 general spirit of the bankruptcy laws or are contrary 
 to specific sections of the Act 8 . 
 
 4. He may in certain cases disclaim property of an 
 onerous nature. 
 
 The trustee takes the bankrupt's property for an b. 
 absolute estate in law, but for limited purposes only, ^^pro- 
 namely, for the payment of the creditors under thatpertytopay 
 
 creditors but 
 
 bankruptcy and that bankruptcy only, that is for the bankrupt has 
 payment of principal and interest and all costs of the intervene 
 bankruptcy. Subject to that he is trustee to the bank- 
 rupt for the surplus ; but as such trustee he has a bet- 
 ter position than an ordinary trustee; for the debtor 
 has not the ordinary right of a cestui que trust to 
 intervene until the surplus has been ascertained to 
 exist, and all the creditors and interest and costs have 
 been paid 9 . 
 
 5 Section 34. 
 
 "See section 4(10). 
 
 'See notes to section 3(6) (c), and notes to section 17. 
 
 "See section 3(c) and notes to section 17 and sections 29, 30, 31, 
 33. 
 
 'Per Farwell, J., in Bird v. Philpott (1900), 1 Ch. 822; 69 L. J. 
 Ch. 487 ; 7 Mans. 251 ; Ex parte Sheffield in re Austin (1879) , 10 Ch. D. 
 434; In re Leadbitter (1878), 10 Ch. D. 388; 4,8 K J. Ch. 242. See as 
 
28.2 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 25 But where the debtor is able to pay all his debts 
 
 in full and so is interested in keeping the costs as low 
 
 as possible, he may be allowed to attend taxation 10 . 
 
 c. A bankrupt has a right during his bankruptcy to 
 
 rightto'hS* the surplus assets and may dispose of them by deed or 
 
 sul ?t us w ^ even before they are ascertained, and charges 
 
 validly so created will be good as against his trustee 
 
 in a subsequent bankruptcy which occurs before he has 
 
 obtained his discharge under his first bankruptcy 1 . 
 
 D. A debtor cannot by any assignment or charge give 
 
 ?ot b *ncSnber a good title as against his trustee to profits of his busi- 
 profits of his riess which will be earned after the commencement of 
 ' ' his bankruptcy; for they are not his property 2 , nor to 
 moneys due under executory contracts the execution 
 of. which are dependent on the continuation of the 
 business of the debtor 3 , but he can assign or charge 
 property already earned 4 , 
 in. Trus- It may be that the trustee in bankruptcy, can treat 
 
 againsfprior the trustee under an authorized assignment as a trustee 
 trustee. d e son tort, as where the making of the authorized 
 assignment is the act of bankruptcy on which the peti- 
 tion is founded 5 . If such be the case the trustee in 
 bankruptcy can claim from the trustee under the 
 authorized assignment all the property of the bankrupt 
 which remains in his possession unconverted, and the 
 
 value of all property of which he has taken possession 
 
 • i 
 
 to bankrupt's rights to impeach "the acts of his assignee: fir parte Archer 
 -(1826), 2 Glyn & J. 110; Ex parte MalacKy (1840), 1 Mont. D. & D. 
 353; 10 L. J. Bank. -7. 
 
 10 In re and ex .parte Geiger (1915) , 1 K. B. 439 ; 84 L. J. K. B.. 589 ; 
 1 H. B. R. 44 ; and where there has been an infringement of the Act or 
 rules with respect to costs, the debtor may, after discharge; hav« the taxa- 
 tion re-opened : In re Yeatman (1916) , 1 K, B. 780 ; 85 L. A K. B. 789 ; 3 
 H. B. K. 30. 
 
 '■Bird v. Philpott (1900), 1 Ch. 822; 69 h. J. Ch. 487; 7 Mans. 251. 
 
 2 7« re Jones em parte NicKolt (1883), 22 Ch. D. 782; 52 L. J. Ch. 
 635. See Mercer Vans Colina (1900) , 1 Q. B. 130n ; 67 L. J. Q. B. 424 ; 
 4 Mans. 363; Mas parte O. R. in re Beall (1899), 1 Q. B. 688; 68 L. J. 
 Q B. 462 ; 6 Mans. 163 ; Ex parte Collins m re Rogers (1894) , 1 Q. B. 
 425 • 63 L J. Q. B. 178 ; 1 Mans. 387 ; contrast Ex parte Moss m re 
 Toward (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 310; 54 L. J. Q. B. 126; Drew v. Joso- 
 lyne (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 590; 56 ,L. J. Q. B. 490. 
 
 • Wilmot v. Alton (1897), 1 Q. B. 17; 66 L. J. Q. B. 42; 4 Mans. 
 
 17. 
 
 4 Ex parte Moss in re Toward, supra ; Drew v. Josolyne, supra. 
 •See notes to sections 3(a), 4(10), 9, 10, 17. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 283 
 
 and converted since the commencement of the title of Section 25 
 the trustee in bankruptcy 6 . iv. Property 
 
 The only trust property which does not pass to the?°*JJ^j° g 
 trustee in bankruptcy is that in which the debtor, being 
 a bare trustee, has no beneficial interest 7 . If thep r0 pert'y 
 debtor has any beneficial interest the property will^^ 3 ^ 
 pass. Thus where the debtor holds as trustee pro- trust for any 
 perty such as leaseholds with onerous covenants on person." 
 which he may be liable, he is entitled to a right of (1) p rop erty 
 indemnity. For this he has a first charge or lien onJ? eldb y 
 the trust property, and so he has such an interest in bare trustee, 
 the property that on his bankruptcy the legal term will 
 pass to his trustee in bankruptcy 8 . It has been said 
 by Fletcher Moulton, L.J., that in such a case the trus- 
 tee in bankruptcy will take the same position in respect 
 of the property as the bankrupt, though to give him 
 this interest it is not necessary that he should formally 
 become trustee of, the property in question. It will 
 be sufficient that from and after the bankruptcy the 
 interest which the bankrupt previously enjoyed bene- 
 ficially is now held by him in trust for the trustee in 
 bankruptcy as representing his estate 9 . 
 
 Property in the possession of a factor or other 
 person in a fiduciary capacity empowered to dispose 
 
 "In re Riddeough ex parte VaugJian (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 25 ; 1 Mor. 
 258; In re Prigoshen ex parte 0. R. (1912), 2 K. B. 494 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 
 1199 ; 19 Mans. 323 ; Ex parte Parsons in re Cook (1909) , 53 Sol. J. 359 ; 
 and see as to a claim by the trustee under the assignment for personal 
 services : In re Richards (1884) , 1 Mor. 242 ; In re Foster ex parte O. R. 
 (1895), 72 L. T. 364, and payments to agents: In re Foster ex parte 
 Rawlings (1887), 4 Mor. 292. 
 
 'Morgan v. Swansea Urban Sanitary Authority (1878), 9 Ch. D. 
 582, 585 ; Carvalho v. Burn (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 382, 392 ; Boddington v. 
 Castelli (1853), 1 E. & B. 879 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 31 ; In re Dodds ex parte 
 Brown (1891), 8 Mor. 86; and see Ludlow v. Browning (1708), 11 
 Mod. 138; Ex parte Gennys in re Elford (1829), 1 M. & M. C. A. 258; 
 In re Caine's Mortgage Trusts (1918-19), B. & C. R. 279. 
 
 'St. Thomas Hospital v. Richardson (1910), 1 K. B. 271; 79 
 L. J. K. B. 488; 17 Mans. 129; Jennings v. Mather (1902), 1 K. B. 1 ; 
 70 L. J. K. B. 1032; 8 Mans. 329. Note that moneys recovered by 
 the trustee in bankruptcy under a right of indemnity against the cestui 
 que trust under such a lease must be paid to the principal creditor, and 
 are not distributable among the other creditors : Ex parte St. Thomas 
 Hospital in re Riehwdson (1911), 2 K. B. 7Q5 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 1232; 
 18 Mans. 227; cf. In re Law Guarantee Society (1914), 2 Ch. 617; 84 
 L. J. Ch. 1. The trustee cannot make a profit for the bankrupt's estate 
 out of the right of indemnity. 
 
 9 Per Fletcher-Moulton, L.J., St. Thomas Hospital v. Richardson 
 (1910), 1 K. B. 271, 279; 79 L. J. K, B. 488; 17 Mans. 129. 
 
284 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 25 of it for his principal does not pass to his assignee in 
 (2) Property bankruptcy 10 , and. the cestui que trust has a lien upon 
 fiduciary sucn property or the proceeds if they can be ascer- 
 capacityby tained 1 , aliter if the same cannot be traced 2 . On the 
 same principle, it has been decided that if a sum of 
 money is entrusted by a principal to a debtor to buy 
 goods, the money will be considered trust funds in 
 the debtor 's hands ; and the principal has the same 
 interest in the goods when bought as he had in the 
 funds producing them. If therefore the goods so 
 bought are mixed with those of the agent, the principal 
 has an equitable title to a quantity to be taken from 
 the mass equivalent to the money used in the purchase 3 . 
 And where money is advanced by way of loan for the 
 purpose of being applied for a specific purpose and 
 is accepted on that understanding, the lender is en- 
 titled to follow and recover the money as if it had 
 been in terms a trust fund 4 . But when a person pays 
 money into a bank to be, applied in a specific manner 
 and the banker stops payment before taking any step 
 toward applying it to the purpose, the payer cannot 
 recover the money paid, but has merely a right of 
 proof as a general creditor 5 . It is otherwise if the 
 money has been specifically appropriated to that pur- 
 pose 6 . As a trustee can never assert a title of his own 
 
 10 Taylor v. Plumer (1815), 3 M. & S. 562 ; 2 Rose 457. 
 
 1 Ex parte Bayers (1800), 5 Ves. 169; In re Cotton ex parte Cooke 
 (1913), 108 L. T. 310; In re Eulton ex parte Manchester and County 
 Bank (1891) , 8 Mor. 69 ; Tooke v. Hollingworth (1793) , 5 T. R. 215 ; In 
 re Coleman (1875), 36 U. O. Q. B. 559, 583 ; In re Williams (1871), 31 
 U. C. R. 143 ; Cotter v. Mason (1870), 30 U. C. Q. >B. 181. 
 
 2 Culhame v. Stuart (1884), 6 O. R. 97; Trusts & Guarantee Go. 
 v. Munro- (1909), 19 O. L. R. 480. 
 
 'Long v. Carter (1896), 26 S. C. R. 430; Harris v. Truman (1882), 
 9 Q. B. D. 264. 
 
 'Gibert v. Oonard (1884), 54 L. J. Cti. 439. 
 
 'In re Barned's Banking 'Co. ex parte Massey (1870), 39 L. J. Ch. 
 635; ef. In re Mills Bawtree & Co. ex parte Stannard (1893), 10 Mor. 
 193 ; and contrast Ex parte Plitt in re Brown (18S9), 6 Mor. 81. 
 
 "Farley v. Turner (1857), 26 L. J. Ch, 710; and see as to moneys 
 in the hands of stock brokers: King v. Hutton (1900), 2 Q. B. 504; 69 
 L. J. Q. B. 786; 7 Mans. 393. See as to the relation between banker 
 and customer for illustrations of the principle of implied trusts: Ex 
 parte Waring in re Agra Bank, 36 L. J. Ch. 151 ; In re Hallett's Estate 
 (1879), 13 Ch. D. 696;' 49 L. J. Ch. 415; Thompson v. Clydesdale Bank 
 (1893), A. C. 282; 62 L. J. P. C. 91; Ex parte Massey in re Barned'f 
 Bank (1870), 39 L. J. Ch. 635; Ex parte Broad to re Neck (1884), 13 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 285 
 
 to trust property, if he chooses to mix trust property Section 25 
 and his own together the whole becomes trust property 
 subject to this, that whatever he can distinguish as his 
 own he can take out 7 . 
 
 The decision in Re Hallett's Estate is important (3) Trust 
 on the question of following trust funds which have^^ s ™ e x r g d 
 been mixed with other funds. It was decided in that 
 case 8 , that when a trustee mixes trust moneys 
 with private moneys in one account the cestui que 
 trust has a charge on the aggregate amount for his 
 trust fund ; and that when payments out are made the 
 payments out are not to be appropriated against the 
 first payments in as in Clayton's case 9 ; for the debtor 
 is supposed to have been honest rather than dishonest 
 and to have made payments out of his own private 
 moneys first. Similarly when out of such a mixed 
 fund the debtor has purchased an investment in his 
 own name and applied the balance to his own purpose, 
 his representatives 'cannot successfully maintain that 
 it was purchased with his own money 10 . But the 
 charge of the cestui que trust does not extend to any 
 more of the mixed fund than is represented by the 
 smallest balance to the credit of the account since the 
 trust funds were paid in 1 . 
 
 There may be cases where although no valid trust (4) Property 
 has been created and the debtor is therefore not a trus- believed he 
 tee, the court will consider it inequitable for his trus- ^^1 
 tee to retain the property 2 . 
 
 The second class of property which is not divisible b. 
 amongst creditors 3 is property which as against the^P^ rom 
 debtor is exempt from execution or seizure under legal execution or 
 
 x * seizure. 
 
 Q. B. D. 740 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 79 ; Ex parte Lloyd in re Watson & Co., 
 91 L. T. 665; Thompson v. Giles (1S24), 2 B. & C. 422; Capital and 
 Counties Bank v. Gordon (1903) , A. C. 240. 
 
 'Frith v. Cortland (1865), 2 Hem. & M. 417; 34 L. J. Ch. 301. 
 
 'In re Halletfs Estate (1879), 13 Ch. D. 696; 49 L. J. Ch. 415. 
 
 9 (1816), 1 Mer. 572. 
 
 10 In re Oatway (1903), 2 Ch. 356; 72 L. J. Ch. 575. 
 ^Roscoe, Ltd. v. Winder (1915), 1 Ch. 62. 
 
 1 In re Bell ex parte Debtor (1908), 99 L. T. 939. 
 
 'The following cases may he referred to on the construction of 
 those sections of Provincial Assignments Acts which deal with non- 
 exigible property outside the assignment: McGregor v. Campbell (1909), 
 19 M. L. R. 38 ; 11 W. L. R. 153 ; In re Vnitt and Prott (1893) , 23 
 O. R. 78 ; Reinhardt v. Hunter (1905), 6 O. W. R. 421. 
 
286 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 25 process in accordance with the laws of the province 
 ~ ~ - within which the property is situate and within which 
 the debtor resides*. Property situate in a province in 
 which the debtor does not reside will therefore be 
 divisible amongst creditors if it falls within section 
 25(b). Tools and implements ordinarily used in the 
 debtor 's occupation are no longer exempt from seizure 
 when he changes the occupation to one in which the 
 tools and implements are not ordinarily used 5 . The 
 $500 exemption from execution under the Homestead 
 Act of British Columbia is not an absolute right but a 
 privilege or option which must be claimed within a 
 reasonable time 6 , 
 c. In addition to the exceptions given in 25 (i) and 
 
 defeasible on 25 (*i), there may be other property, held or enjoyed 
 bankruptcy, by the bankrupt which does not pass to his trustee in 
 bankruptcy. Property limited by other persons to' the 
 debtor until bankrupt and then over 7 , will not pass to 
 the trustee. But a man may not limit his own property 
 to himself in this way. A simple stipulation that 
 upon a man's becoming bankrupt that which was his 
 property up to the date of the bankruptcy should go 
 over to someone else and be taken away from his 
 creditors is void as being in violation of the policy of 
 
 4 The following Provincial Acts and cases may be referred to : 
 Nova Scotia, 48 Vic, 1885, c. 34 ; R! S. N. S. 1900, c. 28. New Bruns- 
 wick, C. S. N. B. 1903, c. 128, s. 34. . Prince Edward Island, 51 Vic, 1888, 
 c. 3, s. 43. Quebec, C. C. P. Arts. 598, 599, 1147A ; R. S. Q. 1909, Arts. 
 2091-2097. Ontario, R. S. O. 1914, c. '80, K 3 ; 1914, c. 28, ss. 44-49. 
 Manitoba, R. S. M. 1913, c. 66, s.. .29, c. 107; 1914, c. 37; 1915,. c 23, 
 and see Logan v. Rea (1903) , 40 C. L. J. 44 ; Roberts v. Hartley (1902), 
 14 M. E. R. 284; Bates v. Cannon (-1908), 18 M. B. R. 7; 8 W: L. Rf 
 575, British Columbia, R. S. B. C. 1911,. c 100 ; c. 79, s,.1.0 : In re Lev 
 (1900)i 7 B. C. R. 94. Alberta, C. O. A. 1915, c. 27. Saskatchewan, 
 R. S. S. 190, e. 47; 1915, o. 31; 1916, c. 37, s. 10; 1915, a. 29; 1916, 
 a 27; 1919, c. 81. Yukon, C. O. X. 1902, c. 25; CO. T. 1914, c. 31. 
 North-West Territories, CO. N. W. T. 1898, c. 27 ; amended by. N. W. T. 
 1898, No. 14 and by N. W. T. 1901, c. 16, and see West v. Ames HoUen 
 Co. (1897), 3 Terr; L. R. 17. See as to-whether the right of exemption 
 is an absolute right or a privilege : In re Ley, supra. 
 
 -Wright v. Hollingshead (1895), 23 O. A. R. 1, document^ of a 
 bankrupt on which he depends to carry on his . business, are , not "tools 
 of his trade " : In re Sherman (1915), 1 H. B. R. 231. 
 
 "Pilling v. Stewart et al. (1895), 4 B. C R. 94. ■-... 
 
 7 See where an interest absolute purporting- to be' defeated on banfc 
 ruptcy without, any limitation over- was treated -as wj terrorem only: 
 Bird v. Johnson (1854), 18 Jur. 976. " - .«.,-- 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 287 
 
 the bankruptcy law 8 . Thus a limitation of a settlor's Section 25 
 own property until bankruptcy is void as against his - 
 creditors 9 , though a similar settlement defeasible on a 
 voluntary assignment has been held to be valid 10 ; and 
 a settlement which would be void as against the trus- 
 tee because limited to be defeated on bankruptcy may 
 yet contain other defeasance clauses which if they 
 operate before the occurrence of bankruptcy may 
 validly transfer the estate limited over 1 . But where an 
 ante-nuptial settlement is made of a man's own pro- 
 perty to pay the income to himself during life or until 
 he should be outlawed or declared bankrupt and then 
 to his wife for life, and the settlor becomes bankrupt 
 before any. of the other defeasance clauses come into 
 operation, the trustee will acquire a non-forfeitable 
 life interest of the bankrupt in the property; for as 
 against the trustee the limitation is void ; but as be- 
 tween the settlor and his wife it is not void and so far 
 as her interest is concerned the forfeiture has taken 
 place 2 . A condition in a contract by a builder that in 
 case of bankruptcy his materials on the land of the 
 landlord should be forfeited to the landlord is void 3 ; 
 though where a lien is given to the landlord on the 
 chattels in question as from the commencement of the 
 contract^ a power may be given to him to seize the 
 
 3 Ex -parte Jay in re Harrison (1880), 14 Ch. D. 19. See Chapter 
 VI., ante, 
 
 8 Higinbotham v. Holme (1811), 19 Ves. 88; Lester v. Garland 
 (1832), 5 Sim: 205; Ex parte Williams in re Thompson, 7 Ch. D. 138; 
 47 L. J. Bank. 26;, In re Brewers' Settlement (1896), 2 Ch. 503; 05 
 L. J. Ch. 821 ; as to what is not such a limitation see In re Ashoy ex 
 parte Wreyford (1S92), 1 Q. B. 872; 9 Mor. 77; In re Denny's Trustee, 
 Denny v. Warr (1919), 1 K. B. 583; 88 L. J. K. B. 679; (1918-19), 
 B. & C. El. 139. 
 
 10 Brooke v. Pearson (1859), 27 Beaven 181; 5 Jur. (N.S.) 781; 
 Knight v. Browne (1861), 7 Jur. (N.S.) 894; 30 B. J. Ch. 649. See 
 where a gift over on "alienation" was held to apply to alienation by 
 act of parties: In re Harvey ex parte Pixley (1889), 6 Mor. 95. See 
 in the case of a lease subject to re-entry by lessor in case of aliena- 
 tion: Doe v, Bevan (1815), 3 M. & S. 353 ; cf. In re Biroeck (1913), 2 
 Ch. 34. 
 
 1 In re Detmold (1889), 40 Ch. D. 585; 58 L. J. Ch. 495 ; Ex parte 
 Matthews and Wilkinson in re Johnson (1904), 1 K. B. 134; 73 L. J, 
 K. B. 220 ; 11 Mans. 14. 
 
 2 In re Burroughs-Fowler (1916), 2 Ch. 251; 85 L. J. Ch. 550; 2 
 H. B, R. 108. 
 
 'Ex parte Jay in re Harrison (1880), 14 Ch. D. 19. 
 
288 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 25 chattels in the event of the bankruptcy of the builder*. 
 ' There is nothing obnoxious to the bankruptcy law in 
 articles which bona fide provide that a shareholder 
 shall, in the event of his bankruptcy, sell his shares to 
 particular persons at a particular price, which is fixed 
 for all persons alike, and which is not shown to be less 
 than the fair price which might otherwise be obtained 5 . 
 
 While a man may not make his property subject to 
 a gift over on his bankruptcy, he may transfer pro- 
 perty to or for the use of another qualifying the inter- 
 est of his alienee by a condition to take effect on 
 bankruptcy 6 , and where funds have been mixed it may 
 be shown which are the funds of the third party. 
 Thus where a post-nuptial settlement was made by 
 husband and wife of property of each of them to tbe 
 husband for life with a gift over to the wife on bank- 
 ruptcy or alienation, it was held that the settlement 
 was good as against the trustee in bankruptcy of the 
 husband to the extent of the property of the wife 
 included in the settlement 7 . 
 
 Where a life interest in a trust fund is to determine 
 on the happening of any event whereby the income 
 would, if belonging absolutely to the tenant for life, 
 '* become payable to some other person," the life inter- 
 est determines if a receiving order is made against the 
 tenant for. life, at least where any income comes into 
 the hands of the trustee before the receiving order is 
 discharged 8 . The date from which the trustee is en- 
 titled to any dividend which vests in him is the date of 
 
 4 Ire re Waugh ex parte Dickm (1880), 4 Ch. D. 524; 46 L. J. 
 Bank. 26 ; as explained in Ex parte Jay in re Harrison (1880) , 14 Ch. 
 D. 19 ; and see' as to a case when property is forfeited " as and for 
 liquidated damages": Ex parte Newitt in re Oarrud (1881), 16 Ch. D. 
 522; 51 L. J. Ch. 381; Climpson v. Cotes {1889), 23 Q. B. D. 465^58 
 L. J. Q. B. 346; Church v. Sage (1892), 67 L, T. 800; 41 W. R. 175. 
 
 'Borland's Trustee v. Steel (1901), 1 Ch. 279; 70 U J. Ch. 51. 
 
 "Wilson v. Greenwood (1818), 18 Swans, 471, 481. 
 
 ' Mcintosh v. Pogose (1895) , 1 Ch. 505 ; 64 i. J. Ch. 275 ; 2 Mans. 
 27; Lockyer v. Savage (1733), 2 Str. 947; Lester v. Garland (1832), 5 
 Sim. 205; Montefiore v. Behrens (1866), L. B, 1 Eq. 171; Ex parte and 
 in re Eyre (1881), 44 L. T. 922 ; Denny v. Denny & Warr (1919), 1 
 K. B. 583. 
 
 8 In re Laye (1913) , 1 Ch. 298 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 218 ; 20 Mans. 124 ; 
 In re Sartoris' Estate (1892), 1 Ch. 11; 61 L. J. Ch. 1; as to the effect 
 of the presentation of a bankruptcy petition in a somewhat similar 
 case, see In re Amherst's Trusts (1872), L. B. 13 Eq. 464; 41 L. J.Ch. 
 222 ; Ex parte Dawes in re Moon (1886) , 17 Q. B. D. 275 ; 3 Mor. 105. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 289 
 
 the commencement of the title of the trustee . A some- Section 25 
 what liberal rule of construction has been adopted - 
 *■ when interpreting clauses in wills and settlements 10 
 whereby income or the proceeds of property be- 
 queathed to or settled on a person is subject to a gift 
 over in bankruptcy or such like event. Although a 
 receiving order or adjudication may have been made, 
 there will be no forfeiture if the bankruptcy is 
 annulled before any income becomes payable 1 ; nor 
 will there be a forfeiture where there is a right to have 
 the adjudication annulled 2 . But if the income becomes 
 payable before annulment the forfeiture will take 
 effect 3 . 
 
 Where, on bankruptcy occurring, the income from (i) Rights of 
 a fund becomes vested in trustees with a discretion to defeasance, 
 pay over such portion as they see fit to the bankrupt, 
 and they pay him more than enough for his mainten- 
 ance, he may be made to account for the excess to his 
 trustee in bankruptcy*. 
 
 Where the bankrupt is entitled to a defeasible inter- @) Trustee 
 est, this interest passes to the trustee subject to be ^ e k s r ^A at 
 defeated in the manner contemplated in the instrument entitled to ; 
 creating that interest. Thus where funds were sub- interests? 
 ject to a power of appointment exercisable by the 
 father of the bankrupt, and in default of appointment 
 were limited to the bankrupt, and after the bankrupt 
 obtained his certificate his father appointed the funds 
 to him, it was held that during the bankruptcy and 
 before the certificate all that the trustee had was a 
 
 'Montefiore v. Guedalla (1901), 1 Ch. 435; 70 L. J. Ch. 435; 8 
 Mans. 126 ; note that under the Canadian Act the making of a receiving 
 order has the same effect as an adjudication in England ; see section 6(3) . 
 
 "Distinguish West v. Williams (1899), 1 Ch. 132, at 148; 6S 
 L. J. Ch. 127. 
 
 1 White v. CUtty (1865) L. R. 1 Eq. 372, 375, 376; 35 L. J. Ch. 
 343; Samuel v. Samuel (1879), 12 Ch. D. 152; 47 L. J. Ch. 716; Lloyd 
 v. Lloyd (1866), L. R 2 Eq. 722. 
 
 'Metcalfe v. Metcalfe, 43 Ch. D. 633. 
 
 "In re Parnliam's Trusts (1872), L. R. 13 Eq, 413; Robertson v. 
 Richardson (1885), 30 Ch. D. 623; 55 L. J. Ch. 275; see further In re 
 Loftus-Otway (1895), 2 Ch. 235; 64 L. J. Ch. 529, where the cases are 
 discussed; and consider the case of a gift subject to a condition preced-< 
 ent : Cox v. Fonblanque, L. R. 6 Eq. 482 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 622. 
 
 1 Re Ashby ex parte Wreyford (1S92), 1 Q. B. 872; 9 Mor. 77. 
 
 B.C.— 19 
 
290 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 25 defeasible title; and that 'under the power of appoint- 
 ment executed after the date of the certificate the trus- 
 tee's title was defeated the bankrupt became entitled 
 in a new right to the whole fund as against the 
 trustee 5 . This principle is subject to the limitation 
 that after the bankruptcy the bankrupt himself may 
 not by his own act defeat or intercept any right which 
 had once been vested in his trustee 8 . 
 
 A gift of property to trustees on trust to pay the 
 income in a certain way during the life of a bankrupt, 
 but should he at any time obtain his certificate then 
 the income to be paid to him, is a contingent interest 
 which vests in the trustee of the bankrupt 7 . Such 
 cases must be distinguished from a mere chance o£ 
 benefit in property in which the debtor has no interest 
 &uch as the chance of receiving a legacy from a rela- 
 tive 8 , or a contingent interest under a policy of life 
 insurance 9 . 
 
 A bequest of income of property to a bankrupt pay- 
 able at the sole discretion of trustees, provided that if 
 the bankrupt obtain his discharge the income is to 
 belong to him for his own absolute use and benefit, is a 
 contingent interest which passes to his trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy. The law will not allow property to be so given 
 to a man as to put him with reference to it in the posi- 
 tion of a femme covert entitled to property for sepa- 
 rate use without power of anticipation 10 . 
 d. Certain rights of action do not pass to the trustee. 
 
 Mtwn which The general rule covering rights of action founded 
 totrastee SS botn in contract and tort is that a cause of action 
 which touches only the person of the bankrupt does 
 not pass to the trustee; but that if it touches his estate 
 
 'Lee V. Olding (1856), 2 Jur. N. S. 850; In re Vizard's Trusts 
 (1866), L. E. 1 Ch. 588; 35 L. J. Ch. 804; 14 W. R. 1000. 
 
 "Hole v. Escott (1838), 4 My. & C. 187. 
 
 'Davidson v. Chalmers (1864), 33 L. J. Ch. 622; 12 W. R. 592; 
 and see as to a possibility coupled with an interest: In re Jones (1868), 
 4 U. C. P. R. 317, 321, 324, and compare: Gray v. Hatch (1871), 18 W. 
 72. 
 
 * Johnson V. Smiley (1853), 17 Reav. 223, 230; In re Inkson's Trusts 
 (1855), 21 Beav. 310; In re Vizard's Trusts (1866), L. R. 1 Ch. &»», 
 In re Parsons, Stockley v. Parsons (1890), 45 Ch. D. 51. 
 
 >Mx parte Dever in re Suse and Sioeth (1887), 18 Q.-B. D. 660; 
 56 L. J. Q. B. 552. 
 
 10 Davidson v. Chalmers (1864), 10 L. T. (N.S.) 217. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 291 
 
 it does pass. The question is fully treated in the dis- Section 85 
 
 cussion of what property passes to the trustee. 
 
 Property of the bankrupt acquired after the mak- . .. E - 
 a at. • • j a • ai. a a • After-acquir- 
 
 ing of the receiving order vests m the trustee in a ed property 
 
 qualified sense until he intervenes, when it vests inde-tmlteVina 
 feasibly in him 1 . qualified 
 
 It may be that there are funds or property in the f. 
 possession of the debtor or his trustee which the court ^"Vtnfetee 
 will order the trustee as one of its officers to return to t0 retu f n 
 the person from whom it was obtained, and this 
 although that person might have been unable by any 
 action at law or in equity to recover the property. In 
 these cases the court will not allow its officer to insist 
 on a rule of law or of equity in the administration of 
 an estate where such insistence would produce an 
 unjust and dishonest result; or where to take advan- 
 tage of that rule would be inconsistent with natural 
 justice and that which an honest man would do 2 , but 
 where there is no moral obligation on the trustee to 
 allow the claim, he will not be ordered to do so 3 . 
 
 We turn now to a consideration of the property v.. Property 
 which vests in the trustee. Subject to the exceptions trustee for 
 already noted, and to such exceptions as are set out division 
 in the further notes to this section all the property of creditors. 
 
 1 See notes to this section : infra, p. 312, under the heading " After 
 Acquired Property", and section 34(1). 
 
 2 In re Thelluson ex parte Abdy (1919), 2 K. B. 735 ; 88 L. J. K. B. 
 1210; (1918-19) B. & C. R. 249; (moneys paid to the debtor without 
 knowledge of an act of bankruptcy after a receiving order had been 
 made) ; Ex parte James in. re Condon (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 609; 43 L. J. 
 Bank. J.07 (voluntary payment by execution creditor to trustee) ; In re 
 Rivett-Carnac ex parte Simmonds (1885) , 16 Q. B. D. 308 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 
 74 (payments to trustee by trustees of a settlement) ; In re and ex parte 
 Rhoades (1899), 2 Q. B. 347; 68 L. J. Q. B. 804 (money paid to the 
 trustee by an executor in ignorance of a right of retainer), In re Tyler 
 ex parte O. R. (1907), 1 K. B. 865 ; 76 L. J. K. B. 541 ; (payments by 
 wife of bankrupt with knowledge of trustee of premiums due on policy 
 of assurance on life of bankrupt), In re Bell ex parte Debtor (1908), 99 
 L. T. 939 (moneys which the debtor conscientiously considered he held 
 as trustee for others) . 
 
 ■ In re Hall ex parte 0. R. (1907) , 1 K. B. 875 ; 76 L. J. K. B. 546 
 (payments made to creditors by mortgagees with notice of an act of 
 bankruptcy) ; Tapster v. Ward (1909), 101 L. T. 25, 503 (payments 
 by the debtor made without the knowledge of the trustee on a life assur- 
 ance policy, which formed part of his estate in bankruptcy) , In re 
 Phillips (1914), 2 K. B. 689; 83 L. J. K. B. 1364 (similar to Tapster 
 v. Ward) ; In re Stokes ex parte Mellish (1919), 2 K. B. 256 ; 88 L. J. 
 K. B. 794; (1918-19) B. & C. R. 208 (a similar case). 
 
292 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 25 the bankrupt vests in the trustee as the legal repre- 
 sentative of the debtor 4 ; but he takes it subject to all 
 the rights and equities to which it was subject while 
 held by the debtor 5 , provided those rights and equities 
 are not contrary to the policy or special enactments of 
 the bankruptcy law and are not over-reached by the 
 relation back of his. title 6 . 
 A. The property vesting in the trustee of a bankrupt 
 
 debtora^ is apparently all such property as may belong to or be 
 sentation r of ves ted in the debtor at the date of the presentation of 
 any petition, the petition 7 on which the receiving order is made 8 . The 
 words "at the date of the presentation of any peti- 
 tion" are no doubt capable of a wider construction, 
 but it is suggested that the interpretation given above 
 is the most probable one. The relation back of the title 
 of the trustee (as distinguished from the relation back 
 of the bankruptcy of the debtor) is not so extensive as 
 that under the English Act 9 . There is no relation back 
 in the case of an authorized assignment. Form 18 
 gives the form of assignment for the general benefit 
 of creditors. There is no provision in the form for a 
 schedule of the property which is to pass by the 
 assignment. 
 
 The object of the bankruptcy law is that everything 
 
 'In re Maplelack ex parte CaUecott (1876), 4 Ch. D. 150; 13 Cox. 
 374. 
 
 "In re Clarke ex parte Beardmore (1894), 2 Q. B. 393; 63 L. J. 
 Q. B. 706 ; 1 Mans. 207. 
 
 "See Chapter VI. 
 
 7 Note the curious expression " the date of the petition " in sec- 
 tions 29(2) and 30. 
 
 8 See notes to sections 6(3) and 4(10). Rule 76 says: "The peti- 
 tion is deemed to have been presented to the court on the day of the 
 filing thereof." See, however, notes to that Rule. 
 
 9 Section 38(a) of the English Act reads "all such property as 
 may belong to or be vested in the bankrupt at the commencement of 
 the bankruptcy, or may be acquired by or devolve on him before his 
 discharge", and section 37(1) of the same Act says: " The bankruptcy 
 of a debtor whether it takes place on the debtor's own petition or upon 
 that of a creditor or creditor's, shall be deemed to have relation back 
 to and to commence at, the time of the act of bankruptcy being com- 
 mitted on which a receiving order is made against him, or, if the 
 bankrupt is proved to have committed more acts of bankruptcy than 
 one, to have relation back to, and to commence at, the time of the 
 first of the acts of bankruptcy proved to have been committed by the 
 bankrupt within three months next preceding the date of the presenta- 
 tion of the bankruptcy petition ". 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 293 
 
 belonging to the bankrupt which can be turned to profit Section 25 
 shall pass to the trustee for the benefit of creditors 1 . 5! 
 
 There is old case law to the effect that property of ^bSl-' ° f 
 the debtor beyond the reach of the insolvent laws such ruptey law. 
 
 as property in the United States, will not pass to the,, T , *?• 
 ,,,,.., . . what is pro- 
 
 trustee - ; but the present Act gives a much more exten- perty is 
 
 sive definition to property than former Acts*, though th^Act 1 but 
 
 what effect will be given by foreign courts to this j ) t e ^ 1 d s s ° d n e " 
 
 enactment has yet to be. determined. While "pro- Provincial 
 
 perty" is defined by section 2(dd), the question of a 
 
 what is or what is deemed to be the property of the 
 
 debtor will, in many respects, depend on provincial 
 
 laws*. 
 
 Subject to the provisions of the Act with respect to 
 
 settlements, and marriage contracts 5 , and to the rule 
 
 in bankruptcy law that the trustee takes subject to the 
 
 same equities as the bankrupt , provincial law will 
 
 have to be resorted to to ascertain the property and 
 
 rights 7 of married women whose husbands become 
 
 '"Per Buller, J., in Smith v. Coffin (1795), 2 H. Bl. 444, a case 
 on the question whether a right of action founded on a writ of entry 
 fur abatement passed to the assignee.. 
 
 2 Roe v. Smith, 15 Gr. 344. 
 
 3 See section 2(dd), where eases are collected. 
 
 'See per Patterson, J., in In re Barrett (1880), 5 O. A. R. 206. 
 See e.g. The Conditional Sales Act of Ontario, R. S. O. 1914, c. 136, s. 
 2 of which gives the consequences of non-compliance with the Act. 
 Section 2(3) reads: "where the delivery is made to a trader or other 
 person for the purpose of resale by him in the course of business such 
 provision shall also, as against his creditors, be invalid and he shall be 
 deemed the owner of the goods unless the provisions of this .Act have 
 been complied with." 
 
 Distinguish where there has been no hiring or conditional sale : 
 Langley v. Kahnert (1905), 36 8. C. R. 397. Note that there is no 
 " reputed ownership " clause in The Bankruptcy Act such as appears 
 in section 38(2) (e) of the English Act, nor has the doctrine of reputed 
 ownership been imported into The Companies Winding-up Act: Qor- 
 ringe v. Irwell India Rubier Works (1886), 34 Ch. D. 128; 56 L. J. Ch. 
 85; In re Crumlin Viaduct Works Co. (1879), 11 Ch. D. 755; 48 L. J. 
 Ch. 537. It is conceivable that this matter could be dealt with by a 
 Provincial Act. See further as to the effect of local law : White Star 
 Hotels: Tm-geon (1915), 17 Que. P. R. 299; In re Hart & Ontario 
 Express & Transportation Co. (1892), 22 0. R. 510. 
 
 5 See section 29 and Murray v. Elibank (1804), 10 Ves. 90; White 
 and Tudor, Vol. 1, p. 654. 
 
 "Ex parte Thompson (1835)., 1 Dea. 90, and notes to section 6(3) 
 and 10. 
 
 7 See as to dower: Standard Realty v. Nicholson (1911), 24 O. L. R. 
 46; Pratt v. Bunnell (1891), 21 O. R. 1 ; Casner v. Haight (1884), 
 6 O. R. 451 ; Blong v. Fitzgerald (1893) , 15 P. R. 467 ; Gemmill v. Nelli- 
 
„ g4 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section as bankrupt 8 . While what is meant by ' ' property" in the 
 Act is treated in the notes to section 2(dd), there 
 are certain questions connected with the consideration 
 of what property vests in the trustee which can more 
 conveniently be discussed in the notes to this section. 
 These questions cover : 
 
 (a) Rights of action which do and do not pass to 
 the "trustee. 
 
 (b) Contracts with the debtor. 
 "(c) Shares. 
 
 (d) Alleged gifts. 
 
 (e) Miscellaneous matters. 
 
 ofaSiln 18 Not a11 ri ^ ts of action P ass to the trustee. The 
 
 which do and general rule covering rights of action founded both in 
 
 do not pass con t rac t an <i j n tort is that a cause of action which 
 
 trustee. touches only the person of the bankrupt does not pass 
 
 to the trustee; but that if it touches his estate it does 
 
 pass", and the bankrupt may not generally sue in his 
 
 own name with respect to such a right of action unless 
 
 it has been acquired by him since the bankruptcy 10 . 
 
 "The statute transfers not all rights of action which 
 
 gan (1895), 26 O. B. 307; In re Music Hall Block, Dumble v. Mcintosh 
 (1885), 8 0. R. 225; In re Luckardt (189S), 29 O. R. Ill; Gardner v. 
 Brown (1890), 19 O. R. 202. 
 
 "See Ex parte Whitehead (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 419; 54 L. J. Q. B. 
 240; 54 S. J. 360; 17 Mans. 125; In re Jamieson ex parte Pannell 
 (1889), 6 Mor. 24. 
 
 'Beckham v. Drake (1849), 2 H. L. C. 579, and see Stanton v. 
 Collier (1853), 23 L. J..Q. B. 116. The bankrupt has no right to sue 
 on matters in which his interest has become vested in his trustee : Boaler 
 v. Power (1910), 2 K. B. 229; 79 L. J. K. B. 486; Jones v. Des 
 Brisay, Trin. T. 1871, Stevens' Digest N. B. R. 413 ; but see Dunn v. 
 Irwin (1875), 25 U. C. O. P. Ill, or in respect of which the Court of 
 Bankruptcy has jurisdiction : Motion v. Moojen (1872) , L. R. 14 Eq. 202 ; 
 41 L. J. Ch. 596, without leave of the court: Payne v. Dicker (1871), 
 24 L. T. 492. A bankrupt cannot bring an action for maintenance on 
 the ground that the defendant incited and supported the bankruptcy pro- 
 ceedings: Metropolitan Bank v. Pooley (1885), 10 A. O. 210; 54 L. S. 
 Q B 449. Nor can a person who has been declared a bankrupt bring 
 an action while his adjudication remains in force to set aside on the 
 ground of fraud the judgment of the petitioning creditor on which the 
 adjudication was made: Boaler v. Power, supra, nor can he bring an 
 action for maliciously procuring the bankruptcy: Metropolitan Bank, 
 <,unra But a bankrupt may sue with respect to goods acquired by 
 Um since his bankruptcy: WeU v. Fox (1797), 7 T. R. 391; and see 
 
 F ° W %1 2£L ( 8TJ&^£rJMlMl>. 17 Ch. D. 169; 51 L. J. 
 pv, 41 • WeU V. Fox, supra ; Fowler v. Down, supra ; Graham v. Mc- 
 Ke'rnan (1877), 42 U. C. Q. B. 368; Ball v. Tennant (1894), 21 O. A. R. 
 602. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 295 
 
 would pass to executors . . . but all such, as Section 25 
 would be assets in their hands for the payment of debts, 
 and no others, — all which could be turned to profit . . . 
 Eights of action for torts which would die with the 
 testator . . . and all actions of contract affecting 
 the person only would not pass ' n . 
 
 In considering what rights of action pass to the (e) 
 trustee and what remain in the bankrupt, it will be'^on SOf 
 convenient first to discuss the cases dealing with rights £o ^ ed t il1 
 of action founded in contract, then with those originat- 
 ing in tort. Eights of action for the breach of such con- 
 tracts as directly affect the personal estate whereby 
 the trustee is prevented from receiving part of it, or 
 its value is diminished, are transferred to the trustee 2 . 
 Thus the right to bring an action for a declaration that 
 a conveyance purporting to be a conveyance absolute 
 was a mortgage passes to the trustee 3 , as does the right 
 to sue on a covenant for indemnity in an assigned 
 lease 4 ; and the right to be indemnified by his cestui 
 que trust ; 5 the right of a lessee to be relieved from a 
 forfeiture of a lease"; and rights under a purchase 
 agreement whereby an assignment is to be executed 
 when the whole of the instalments shall have been 
 paid 7 . On the other hand, actions for breach of con- 
 tract personal to the bankrupt unaccompanied by an 
 injury to the personal estate, as a contract to carry 
 him in safety, or to cure his person of a wound or dis- 
 ease, or a contract to marry are not transferred 8 . 
 
 1 Per Parke, B., in Beckham v. Drake, supra, at 627 ; and see Han- 
 cock v. Caffyn (1832) , 8 Bing. 358, 366 ; 1 M. & Scott 521. 
 
 2 Per Parke, B., in Beckham v. Drake (1849), 2 H. L. C. 579, 626; 
 13 Jur. 921. 
 
 'Seear v. Lawson (1880), L. K. 15 Ch. D. 426; 49 L. J. Bank. 69; 
 and semble, a oona fide sale of this right by the trustee is not impeach- 
 able on the ground of maintenance or champerty : s.c. Guy v. Churchill 
 (1888), L. R. 40 Ch. D. 481. 
 
 'In re Perkins, Poyser v. Beyfus (1898), 2 Ch. 182; 67 L. J. Ch. 
 454 ; 5 Mans. 193. 
 
 " In re Richardson em parte The Governors of St. Thomas' Hospital 
 (1911) , 2 K. B. 705 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 1232 ; 18 Mans. 227 ; cf. In re Law 
 Guarantee Society (1914), 2 Ch. 617; 84 L. J. Ch. 1; and Jennings v. 
 Mather (1902), 1 K. B. 1 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 1032 ; 8 Mans. 329. 
 
 'Howard v. Fanshawe (1895), 2 Ch. 589. 
 
 T Turner v. Hardcastle (1862), 11 C. B. N. S. 683; 31 L. J. C. P. 
 193. 
 
 8 Per Parke, B., in Beckham v. Drake, supra, at 627. 
 
296 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 25 
 
 Contracts 
 in fieri for 
 personal 
 
 services. 
 
 («) 
 
 Personal 
 earnings of 
 bankrupt* 
 
 (6) 
 Rights of 
 action 
 founded in 
 tort. 
 
 A contract in fieri and unexecuted for the personal 
 services of the bankrupt is incapable of assignment 
 and will not vest in the trustee on the bankruptcy 
 occurring", though the trustee may intervene and 
 claim the fruits of the litigation 10 ; 
 
 The right of the trustee to intervene and claim the 
 fruits of the litigation is subject to the general rule 
 that the bankrupt is entitled to his personal earnings 
 to the extent necessary to support himself and family 1 . 
 Whether the right of the trustee is a right in the Bank- 
 ruptcy Court to have so much of the money as is not 
 required for the bankrupt's livelihood appropriated to 
 him by order of the Bankruptcy Court, or whether the 
 trustee has a right to bring an action in his own name 
 to recover the money qucere*. 
 
 Turning now to rights of action founded in tort, it 
 is clear that some actions for torts do pass. Thus 
 actions for damage to personal chattels, whereby they 
 are directly affected, and are prevented from coming 
 into the hands of the assignee, or come diminished in 
 value, pass. An action of trover for conversion before 
 bankruptcy is an example of this 5 . On the other 
 hand, rights of action for injuries to the person, or 
 
 'Baily v. Thurston & Co. (1903), 1 K. B. 137; 72 L. J. K. B. 36; 
 10 Mans. 1; explaining Emden v. Carte (1881), 17 Ch. D. 169, 768; 
 50 L. J. Oh. 492 ; Wadlimg v. Oliphant, 1 Q. B. D. 145 ; 45 L, J. Bank. 
 837, and see Jameson v. Brick Stone Co. (1S78), 4 Q. B. D. 208; 48 
 L. J. Q. B. 249. The property of the debtor vesting in the trustee and 
 divisible among the creditors does not include the unearned proceeds of 
 the personal skill and knowledge of the debtor, so as to empower the 
 court to set aside for the benefit of the creditors a portion of these 
 earnings: Ex parte Benwell m re Sutton (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 301; 
 54 L. J. Q. B. 53; In re Rogers ex parte Collins (1894), 1 Q. B. 425; 
 63 B. J. Q. B. 178 ; 1 Mans. 387. 
 
 10 Wadling v. Oliphant. supra ; Emden v. Carte (188iy, 17 Ch. D. 
 169, 768 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 472, as explained in Bailey v. Thurston, supra. 
 
 1 Affleck v. Hammond (1912), 3 K. B. 162; 81 L. J. K. B. 565; 19 
 Mans. Ill; In re Roberts (1900) 1 Q. B. 122; 69 L. J. Q. B. 19; 16 
 T. L. R. 29; 7 Mans. 5; Bailey v. Thurston (1903), 1 K. B. 137; 72 
 L. J. K. B. 36; 10 Mans. 1; Ex parte Vine in re Wilson (1878), 8 Ch. 
 T>. 364; 47 L. J. Bank. 116; Ex parte Collins in re Rogers (1894), 1 
 Q. B. 425 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 178 ; 1 Mans. 387. See further as to " per- 
 sonal earnings " notes respecting after-acquired property, infra, p. 312. 
 
 4 See per Vaughan-Williams, L.J., in Affleck v. Hammond, supra, and 
 see Silk v. Osoorn (1794), 1 Esp. 140; Crofton v. Poole (1830), 1 B. & 
 Ad. 568. 
 
 "Per Parke, B., in Beckham v. Drake (1849), 2 H. L. C. 579, 626; 
 13 Jur. 921. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 297 
 
 reputation, or to the possession of real estate, do not section 25 
 pass. Actions for assault, for example, for defamation, 
 actions on the case for misfeasance, doing damage to 
 the person, for trespass qucere clausum f regit 6 , actions 
 for criminal conversation with the wife 7 , or for seduc- 
 tion 8 , do not pass to the assignee eyen though some of 
 these causes of action may be followed by a consequen- 
 tial diminution of the personal estate 9 . Damages recov- 
 ered by an undischarged bankrupt in an action for a 
 personal tort do not pass to his trustee, and the trustee 
 cannot intercept them before they reach the bankrupt's 
 hands or prevent him from spending them in the main- 
 tenance of himself and his family ; though if the bank- 
 rupt had accumulated the money and invested it in 
 some property, that property might be reached by the 
 trustee 10 . 
 
 There is no decision on what Collins, L.J.', calls the (0) 
 vexed question as to whether a cause of action can be cau ^ e f ra 
 divided leaving one part to be sued on by the bankrupt, ^ t ^f i J nay 
 the other by the trustee, as where one and the same 
 cause of action results in substantial damage to the 
 property of the bankrupt as well as injury to his person 
 or annoyance to his feelings. Lord Campbell expressed 
 the opinion in Rogers v. .Spence 2 that it may possibly 
 be that the law will give an action to the bankrupt for 
 the personal injury which has been sustained by him 
 and will also give an action to the assignees for the 
 injury which has been done to the property 3 . It has, 
 
 "Rogers v. Spence (1844), 13 M. & W. 571; 12 CI. & F. 700. 
 
 ' Or for slander, and for enticing away and detaining the wife : 
 White v. Elliott (1870) , 30 U. C. Q. B. 253. 
 
 "Howard v. Crdwther (1841), 8 M. &. W. 601; 5 Jur. 914. 
 
 • Per Parke B., Beckham v. Drake, supra, at 626 ; Rogers v. Spence 
 (1844), 13 M. & W. 571; 581; 12 CI. & F. 700; Smith v. Commercial 
 Union (1873), 33 U. C. Q. B. 520. As to negligence of a solicitor in 
 defending an action, see Wetherell v. Julius (1850), 19 L. J. C. P. 367 ; 
 and contrast: Kellaway v. Bury (1892), 66 L. T. 599. 
 
 10 Ex parte Vine in re Wilson (1878), 8 Ch. D. 364; 47 L. J. Bank. 
 116. 
 
 1 In Rose v. Buckett (1901) , 2 K. Br 449, at 455 ; 70J,. J. K. B. 736 ; 
 8 Man. 259. 
 
 2 (1846), 12 CI. & F. 700, 720. 
 
 8 See also per Parke, B., in Beckham v. Drake (1847), 2 H. L. C. 
 579, 629. As to cases where special or vindictive damages are recover- 
 able, see per Collins, L.J., in Rose v. Buckett, supra, commenting on 
 Brewer in re Drew (1843), 11 M. & W. 625 ; 12 L. J. Ex. 448, and cf. 
 
298 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 25 however, been decided that where the damages to pro- 
 _ — perty by trespass and conversion are merely nominal, 
 the cause of action in respect thereof is not regarded 
 as one affecting the value of the property passing to 
 the trustee so as to give him a right of action in respect 
 thereof, but rather, as a wrong personal to the bank- 
 rupt himself*. But where two causes of action, totally 
 distinct, arise out of the same contract, and the debtor 
 before bankruptcy assigns his right under one of them, 
 and his bankruptcy, vests in his trustee the right to sue 
 under the other, the bankrupt himself may sue as trus- 
 tee for his transferee on the first cause of action 5 . 
 {d) It should be noted that a person who sues on behalf 
 
 oirbehaif of of himself and all other creditors and is adjudicated 
 other* 1 * and bankrupt during the litigation becomes incapable of 
 creditors. conducting the action; and semble, the action will be 
 dismissed unless the trustee obtains an order to carry 
 on the proceedings 6 , 
 (e) The practice with respect to actions already insti- 
 
 regarda 6 ** tuted in which the bankrupt is. a plaintiff or defendant 
 defendants!" 1 w ^ var y m eaen province. For the convenience of the 
 profession in the absence of decisions under the Act, the 
 English practice is given. It is based on Order 17, 
 Bules I to 4 inclusive 7 . 
 
 Sodgson v. Sidney (1866), L. R. 1 Ex. 313; 35 L. J. Ex. 182, and 
 Morgan v. Steblle (1872) , OL. R. 7 Q. B. 611 ; 47 L. J. .Q. B. 260. It is 
 clear that two causes of action may arise from the same wrongful act. 
 In a case where the plaintiff received bodily injuries, and at the same 
 time the plaintiff's cab was injured, it was held that the plaintiff who 
 had recovered judgment in the county court for damage to his cab 
 could sue in the high court claiming damages for personal injury: 
 Brunsdeu v. Humphrey (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 141 ; 53 h. J. Q. B. 476. 
 
 'Rose v. Buckett, supra. . 
 
 'Boddington v. CastelU (1853), 1 E. & B. 879; 23 L. J. Q. B. 31. 
 
 " Wolff v. Van Boolen (1906), 94 L. T. 502. 
 
 ' Order 17, Rules 1-4 reads : " Order 17, Rule 1.— A cause or matter 
 shall not become abated by reason of the marriage, death, or bankruptcy 
 of any of the parties, if the cause of action survive or continue and shall 
 not become defective by the assignment, creation or devolution of any 
 estate or title, pendente lite; and whether the cause of action survives 
 or not, there shall be no abatement by reason of the death of either party 
 between the verdict or finding of the issues of fact and the judgment, but 
 judgment may in such case be entered, notwithstanding the death. 
 Rule 2.— In case of the marriage, death, or bankruptcy, or devolution 
 of estate by operation of law, of any party to a cause or matter, the 
 court or a judge may, if it be deemed necessary for the complete settle- 
 ment of all the questions involved, order that the husband, persona 
 representative, trustee, or other successor in interest of any of sucli 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 299 
 
 Where a plaintiff becomes bankrupt and tbe right section 25 
 of action does not pass to the trustee 8 , the bankrupt (^ ~~ 
 can continue the action without joining the trustee 9 , ^coming 
 Where the right of action vests in the trustee the bankrupt, 
 action does not abate if the cause of action continues 10 , 
 but the bankrupt cannot continue the action in his own 
 name 11 unless the trustee re-assigns the cause of 
 action to him 1 . Thus where a plaintiff suing on 
 behalf of himself and all other creditors becomes a 
 bankrupt the action will be dismissed unless his trus- 
 tee intervenes, for the plaintiff can only sue as a credi- 
 tor, which he ceases to be by the assignment by opera- 
 tion of law to his trustee 2 . Where the plaintiff is 
 adjudicated bankrupt after action brought and his 
 trustee declines to proceed with the action it may be 
 stayed and possibly dismissed 3 . If it is stayed the 
 
 party be made a party, or be served with notice in such manner and 
 form as hereinafter prescribed and on such terms as the court or judge 
 shall think just, and shall make such order for the disposal of the 
 cause or matter as may be just. Rule 3. — In case of an assignment, 
 creation or devolution of any estate or title pendente lite, the cause or 
 matter may be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such 
 estate or title has come or devolved. Rule 4. — Where by reason of 
 marriage, death or bankruptcy, or any other event occurring after the 
 commencement of a cause or matter and causing a change or transmission 
 of interest or liability or by reason of any person interested coming into 
 existence after the commencement of the cause or matter, it becomes 
 necessary or desirable that any person not already a party should be 
 made a party, or that any person already a party should be made a 
 party in another capacity, an order that the proceedings shall be carried 
 on between the continuing parties, and such new party or parties, may 
 be obtained ex parte on application to the court or a judge, upon an 
 allegation of such change or transmission of interest or liability, or of any 
 such person interested having come into existence. Some recent decisions 
 under The Bankruptcy Act are noted under section 20(1) (c). 
 
 8 See notes to this section under heading Rights of Action. 
 
 ?Rose v. Buckett (1901), 2 K. B. 449; 70 L. J. K. B. 736; 17 
 T. L. R. 544 ; 8 Mans. 259 ; Low v. <?. E. Ry. Co. (1908) , 1 K. B. 195 ; 
 Affleck v. Hammond (1912), 3 K. B. 162; 81 L. J. K. B. 565; 19 Mans. 
 111. 
 
 M Order 17, Rule 1 ; Barker v. Johnson (1889), 60 L. T. 64. 
 
 a Jackson v. N. E. Rly. Co. (1877), 5 Ch. 844; 46 'L. J. Ch. 723; 
 though he may get leave to continue in the name of the trustee : In re 
 Whatman (1889), W. N. 213. 
 
 'Barker v. Johnson (1889), 60 L. T. 64. 
 
 'Wolff v. Van Boolen (1906), 94 L. T. 502. 
 
 'Warder v. Saunders (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 114; Barker v. Johnson, 
 supra, at 65. The former practice in Ontario in case of abatement of 
 an action by reason of the bankruptcy of the sole, plaintiff was for a 
 defendant who wished to get rid of the suit to serve the plaintiff, 
 assignee with notice of -motion for an order that he do within a time to 
 be limited prefer supplemental proceedings for the purpose of prosecuting 
 the suit, and in default, that the action be dismissed : Cameron v. Eager 
 (1873), 6. P. R. 117. 
 
300 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY AGT. 
 
 section 25 trustee may not in the absence of special circumstances 
 have the stay removed; nor is the plaintiff after his 
 discharge and after the purchase of the right of action 
 from the trustee entitled in the absence of special cir- 
 cumstances to a removal of the stay*. If after he has 
 got leave to continue the action a trustee is removed 
 and a new one appointed, the latter must, if he wishes 
 to continue the action, get leave to do so even though 
 the action is in the official name of the trustee 5 . The 
 trustee may decline to prosecute the action and, if so, 
 he cannot be added as defendant against his will". It 
 seems that the trustee may get leave to issue execu- 
 tion on a judgment obtained by the bankrupt without 
 getting himself formally made a party to the action 7 . 
 If the liquidator of a company which is being wound 
 up continues an action initiated by the company before 
 the commencement of the winding-up and the action is 
 dismissed with costs, the defendant is entitled to all his 
 costs in full to be paid out of the estate arid not merely 
 the costs as from the commencement of the winding-up 
 with liberty to prove for the costs previously incurred 8 . 
 Where a defendant becomes bankrupt and the cause 
 of action is a debt provable in the bankruptcy,* the- 
 plaintiff will usually not be permitted to continue the 
 action 10 ; nor will the trustee be made a defendant. The 
 plaintiff should resort to the Court of Bankruptcy in 
 order to establish his case against the bankrupt's 
 estate -, 1 but where some relief may be obtained against 
 the trustee he can be joined 2 , as in actions which are 
 allowed to proceed 3 . In actions against two or more 
 defendants, one of whom becomes bankrupt, his trustee 
 
 1 Selig v. Lion (1891) , 1 Q. B. 513 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 403. 
 
 'Pooley's Trustee v. Whetham (1884), 28 Ch, D. 38 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 
 182, 
 
 'Farnhamv. Milward & Co. (1895), 2 Ch. D. 730; 64 L. J. Ch. 816. 
 
 '/n re Bagley (1911), 1 K. B. 317, 325; 80 L. J. K. B. 168; 55 
 Sol. J. 48 ; 18 Man. 1. 
 
 8 In re London Drapery Stores (1898), 2 Ch. 684. 
 
 See section 44. 
 10 See Section 7(2). 
 
 1 Barter v. Duoeux (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 413 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 527, and 
 see Hutchins v. Cohen (1870), 15 L. C. J. 235. 
 
 "Hale v. Boustead (1,881), 8 Q. B. D. 453; 51 L. J. Q. B. 255; 
 Greenwood v. Humoer (1898), 6 Mans. 42. 
 'Sharp v. McHenry (1886), 55 L. T. 747. 
 
 (U) 
 Defendant 
 becoming 
 bankrupt. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 301 
 
 may be made a party*. In such a case judgment will Section 25 
 not usually be against the trustee; or that he pay 
 out of the estate ; but judgment will be against the other 
 defendant with liberty to the plaintiff to prove in the 
 bankruptcy for the amount of the established claim 5 . 
 Although in the case of a joint claim the plaintiff may 
 be compelled to join the trustee of the bankrupt defend- 
 ant, he cannot be compelled to do so in the case of a 
 several claim, but may proceed with the action against 
 the other defendant or defendants 6 . Actions in. respect 
 of debts or claims not provable in bankruptcy or as to 
 which the discharge in bankruptcy would be no release 
 will not be stayed, and such actions may be continued 
 against the bankrupt personally, even though the 
 trustee has been made a party to the suit 7 . 
 
 The rights of the trustee and others with respect @) Contracts 
 to contracts into which the bankrupt had entered^" 1 ' 11 debtor - 
 should be noticed. 
 
 A contract is not necessarily put an end to by the ( ffi ) 
 bankruptcy or insolvency of one party 8 . But whenA™"^**^ 
 bankruptcy occurs the rights of the trustee are not in sariiy ter- 
 all respects the game as those of the debtor before his bankruptcy, 
 bankruptcy or insolvency. Where the purchaser of goods 
 sold on credit becomes bankrupt before the vendor has 
 parted with possession of the goods, the trustee in 
 bankruptcy has a right to elect to complete the contract 
 by paying the agreed price in cash within a reasonable 
 time. If he does not do so the vendor is entitled to 
 treat the contract as broken, and to resell the goods 
 without first tendering them to the trustee 3 . Semhle 
 a sub-purchaser from the bankrupt is entitled to an 
 option to complete the original contract on tendering • 
 the agreed price in cash within a reasonable time 10 . 
 
 'Barter v. Dubeux, supra. 
 
 ' Barter v. Dubeux, supra, at 417. 
 
 'Lloyd v. Dimmack (1877), 7 Ch. D. 398; 47 L. J. Ch. 308. 
 
 7 Ex parte Coker in re Blake (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 652; 44 L. J. 
 Bank. 126. 
 
 'Gibson v. Carruthers (1841), 8 M. & W. 321; Lawrence v. 
 Knowles (1839), 5 Bing. N. C. 399; Tolhurst v. Associated Portland 
 Cement Mfgs. (1902), 2 K. B. 660; 71 L. J. K. B. 949 ; William Hamil- 
 ton Mfg. Co. v. Hamilton Steel & Iron Co. (1910) , 23 O. L. R. 270. 
 
 9 Ex parte Stapleton in re Nathan (1879) , L. R. 10 Ch. D. 586. 
 
 10 Ex parte Stapleton in re Nathan, supra. 
 
302 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 25 On bankruptcy or insolvency occurring the unpaid 
 : vendor, even where he has contracted to sell on credit, 
 
 may exercise his right of stoppage in transitu, and 
 , may hold the goods until paid or tendered the price 1 . 
 If after the transitus is at an end and the goods are in 
 the possession of the debtor, he returns them to the 
 vendors this may amount to a fraudulent preference 3 . 
 Although the transitus may be at an end the property 
 does not, without such an acceptance as will satisfy 
 the Statute of Frauds, legally vest in the consignee 
 where there is no binding contract between the vendor 
 and vendee 4 . 
 
 The trustee has not, in the absence of a definite 
 clause in the contract to that effect, a right himself to 
 complete a contract which involves' the personal skill 
 of the bankrupt 5 . 
 
 Where a contract for the sale of goods has been 
 induced by the fraud of the purchaser the vendors are 
 entitled to disaffirm the contract and resume possession 
 of the goods notwithstanding the making of a receiving 
 order ; for the title of the trustee in bankruptcy is sub- 
 ject to the rights of third parties . 
 
 1 Biddlecombe v. Bond, 4 A. & E. 332 ; Bloxam v. Sanders (1825) , 
 4 B. & C. 949; Ex parte Francis in re Bruno, Silva & Co. (1887), 57 
 L. T. 577 ; 4 Mor. 146; Ex parte Hughes in re Gurney (1802), 67 L. T. 
 598; 9 Mor. 294; Ex parte Watson in re Love (1877), 5 Ch. D. 35; 
 46 L. J. Bank. 97; Ex parte Cooper in re McLaren (1879), 11 Ch. D. 
 . 68 ; 48 L. J. Bank. 49. 
 
 'In re Ramsay ex parte Deacon (1913), 2 K. B. 80; 82 L. J. 
 Bank. 526; 20 Mans. 15; Ex parte Wright in re Johnson (1908), 99 
 L. T. 305; 52 Sol. J. 622; Barnes v. Freeland (1794), 6 T. R. 80; Ex 
 parte Suffolk in re Fletcher (1891-1892)-, 9 Mor. 8 ; Ex parte Fabian in 
 re Landrock (1884) , 1 Mor. 62 ; Ex parte Bailer in re O'Sullivan (1892) , 
 61 L. J.. Q. B. 228 ; 66 L. T. 619 ; 67 L. T. 464, where Williams, J., 
 and Collins, J., differed as to the effect of re-delivery of the bills of 
 lading to the vendors. In Ex parte Wright in re Johnson, supra, Bing- 
 ham, J., expressed a preference for the view of Collins, J. As to 
 termination of the transitus by the consignee taking possession as owner, 
 see James v. Emerson (1837), 2 M. & W. 623. 
 
 'Nicholson v. Bower (1858), 1 E. &'E. 172; 28 L. J. Q. B. 97. 
 
 5 Knight V. Burgess (1864), 33 L. J. Ch. 727; In re Worthington 
 ex parte Pathe Freres (1914), 2 K. B. 299; 83 L. J. K. B. 885; 21 
 Mans. 119. 
 
 'In re Eastgate ex parte Ward (1905), 1 K. B. 465; 74 L. J. K. B. 
 324 ; 12 Mans. 11 ; Tilley v. Bowman (1910) , 1 K. B. 745 ; 79 h. J. K. B. 
 547; 17 Mans. 97; Ex parte Whittaker in re Shackleton (1875), L. R. 
 10 Ch. 446 ; 44 L. J. Bank. 91, and see notes to Chapter VI. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 303 
 
 Where time is of the essence of a contract, and, Section 25 
 after a deposit has been paid, the purchaser obtains 
 notice of an act of bankruptcy by the vendor, the pur- 
 chaser is entitled under the English Act to refuse to 
 complete and to recover back the deposit money 
 because the vendor cannot give either a good convey- 
 ance or a valid receipt for the purchase money'. 
 
 Where the purchaser of goods under a contract 
 calling for deliveries ,from time to time becomes insol- 
 vent, the seller, notwithstanding that he may have 
 agreed to give credit for the goods, is not bound to 
 deliver any more goods under the contract, until he 
 is paid the price of those goods ; and if the purchaser 
 is in arrears in any of his payments the seller is 
 entitled to" refuse to deliver any more goods till he is 
 paid the debt due for those already delivered, as well 
 as the price of those remaining to be delivered 8 . But 
 the vendor is not justified in refusing to deliver merely 
 because the purchaser has (called certain creditors 
 together and has stated to them that he is carryings on 
 business at a loss and is short of working capital, and 
 has .requested them to give him an extension of time. 
 There must be such an admission of insolvency at the 
 time as amounts to a declaration of intention not to 
 pay for the goods 9 . When the purchaser becomes 
 bankrupt specific performance will not be enforced 
 against his trustee; for specific performance is not 
 granted against assignees unless they consent, and to 
 grant the relief asked would amount to the payment 
 to one creditor of one hundred cents on the dollar at 
 the expense of the others 10 . It is otherwise when the 
 vendor becomes bankrupt 1 . Thus when the full pur- 
 
 * Powell v. Marshall, Parkes & Co. (1899), 1 Q. B. 710; 68 L. J. 
 Q. B. 477; 6 Mans. 157, and see notes to section 4(10) on the relation 
 back of the title of the trustee under The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 *Ex parte Chalmers in re Edwards (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 289 ; 42 L. J. 
 Bank. 37 ; William Hamilton Mfg. Co. v. Hamilton Steel & Iron Co. 
 (1910), 23 0. L. R. 270. 
 
 'In re Phoenix Bessemer Steel €0. ex parte Garnforth Iron Co 
 (1876), 4 Ch. D. 108; 46 L. J. Ch. 115. 
 
 "Holloway v. York (1877), 25 W. K. 627. 
 
 l Ex parte RaoUdge in re Pooley (1878), 8 Ch. D. 367; 48 L. J. 
 Bank. 15; Pearce v. Bastaole's Trustee (1901), 2 Ch. 122; 70 L. J Ch 
 446; 8 Mans. 287. 
 
304 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 25 chase money is paid before the vendor is adjudicated 
 bankrupt, the purchaser has a right to call on the 
 trustee for specific performance 2 ; but where after 
 adjudication the purchaser pays the purchase money 
 to the bankrupt vendor and not to the trustee, he pays 
 to the wrong person and is entitled to a conveyance 
 from the trustee (who is the legal owner subject to the 
 equity of the purchaser) only on payment of the bal- 
 ance of the purchase money to him 3 . Specific perform- 
 ance will not be given unless the parties seeking it 
 come promptly 4 . Where the right to specific perform- 
 ance is lost, the purchaser will be a secured creditor in 
 respect of the deposit paid, for which he is entitled to 
 a lien on the subject matter of the contract, unless his 
 conduct amounts to a repudiation of the contract or a 
 Statute of Limitations applies 5 ; or unless the contract 
 has gone off by reason of his default ; when the vendor 
 is entitled to retain the deposit 6 . Subject to the excep- 
 tions above noted, the trustee, generally speaking, 
 stands in the same position as the bankrupt himself 
 and is, at the option of a purchaser, bound to perform 
 the contract in exactly the same way as the bankrupt 
 himself was bound to perform it 7 . 
 
 (6) There is no section in the Canadian Act correspond- 
 
 o/onercm^ ing with section 54 of the English Act which gives the 
 C ro tr ert ts ' ° r trustee the right to disclaim onerous contracts or pro- 
 perty 71 . The law under The Bankruptcy Act in this 
 respect will be the same as the law in England before 
 the Act of 1869 was passed 8 , with the exception, that 
 
 2 In re Taylor ex parte Norvell (1910), 1 K. B. 562 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 
 610; 17 Mans. 145. 
 
 3 Ex parte Rabbidge in re Pooley, supra. 
 
 4 Levy v. Stogdon (1898), 1 Ch. 47S; 67 L. J. Ch. 313. 
 Levy v. Stogdon, supra. 
 
 "Ex parte Barrett m re Parnell (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 512; 44 L. J. 
 Bank. 138. 
 
 'ft parte Solthausen in re Scheibler (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 722; 44 
 L. J. Bank. 26, and see notes to Chapter VI. 
 ,a See, however, section 52(6) as to leases. 
 
 8 Section 23 of the English Act (1869), 32 and 33 Vic. c. 71, first 
 gave the right of disclaimer. It may be that a distinction exists with 
 respect to the vesting of onerous property in the trustee, between pro- 
 perty passing under an authorized assignment and property passing 
 under a receiving order: Contrast Doe Palmer v. Andrews (1827), 4 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 305 
 
 section 44 of The Bankruptcy Act 9 gives a right of Section 25 
 proof against the estate of the debtor with respect to _ 
 contracts entered into before the date of the receiving 
 order or authorized assignment. The law under The 
 Bankruptcy Act would seem to be that a trustee may 
 at his option perform the contract into which the bank- 
 rupt has entered or he may abandon it 10 . Before the 
 Act -of 1869 if the trustee repudiated the contract the 
 person damnified could bring an action against the 
 bankrupt personally 1 , to which the discharge of the 
 bankrupt was no answer 2 . The law in this respect has 
 been altered by section 44 of the Canadian Act; and 
 the result is that on disclaimer or non-performance of 
 the contract, the person damnified no longer has a 
 remedy against the bankrupt but may prove against 
 the estate 8 . 
 
 Where a building contract contains a clause that if (°) 
 the work is not finished by such and such a time, or if trustee who 
 the contractor becomes bankrupt, the owner may™ntract s 
 employ another builder to complete it, and the con- withown 
 tractor does become bankrupt, a person who has re- 
 ceived an equitable assignment from the contractor of 
 
 Bing. 348; Magee v. Rankin (1869), 29 U. C. Q. B. 257; Cartwiight v. 
 Glover (1861), 2 Giff. 620, and Metropolitan Bank v. Offord (1870), 
 L. K. 10 Eq. 398; with Copeland v. Stephens (1818), 1 B. & Aid. 593; 
 Goodwin v. Noble (1857), 8 E. & B. 587 ; 28 L. J. Q. B. 204 ; Mackley v. 
 Pattenden (1861), 1 B. & S. 178; Bishop v. Trustees of Bedford Charity 
 (1859), 1 EI. & EI. 697; The South Staffordshire Railway Co. v. 
 Burnside (1850), 5 Ex. 129, and other cases cited in Denison v. Smith 
 (1878), 43 U. C. Q. B. 503. Whether shares on which calls are due, 
 which are not disclaimed by the trustee, are deemed to have been 
 accepted by him, quaere; see Denison v. Smith, and TheSotith Stafford- 
 shire Railway Co. v. Burnside, supra. See notes to section 44. 
 
 Which correspond to section 31 of the Act of 1869. 
 
 10 Gibson v. Garruthers (1841), 8 M. & W. 321; In re Sneezum ex 
 parte Davis (1876), 3 Ch. D. 463; 45 L. J. Bank. 137, and see Denison 
 v. Smith (1878) , 43 U. C. Q. B. 503. 
 
 1 But not against the trustee : In re Sneezum ex parte Davis, 3 Ch. 
 D. 463 ; 45 L. J. Bank. 137. 
 
 'Boorman v. Nash (1829), 9 B. & C. '145; In re Sneezum ex parte 
 Davis (1876), 3 Ch. D. 463; 45 L. J. Bank. 137. 
 
 "See notes to section 44, and see section 61(2). Note the trustee 
 is not personally liable in respect of such a contract, even when he has 
 carried it on for a time and then abandoned it : In re Sneezum ex parte 
 Davis, supra. See as to disclaimer of after-acquired property under the 
 English Act: In re Clayton and Barclay's Contract (1895), 2 Ch. 212; 
 64 L. J. Ch. 615. 
 
 B.C.— 20 
 
306 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 (3) Shares. 
 
 section 25 money due under the contract will have a claim on 
 those moneys in priority to the trustee of the bankrupt 
 who has advanced his own moneys "and completed the 
 contract, where the trustee has carried on under the 
 old contract ; but not where he has completed the work 
 under a new arrangement with the owner 4 . 
 
 The expression "thing in action" does not include 
 merely a. right to sue for a debt or damages ; it includes 
 for example a share in an incorporated company trans- 
 ferable only by deed 5 . Prima facie the trustee is entitled 
 in England to a "clean" certificate- like that possessed 
 by the person from whom he derived his title; even 
 ^ where the company claims a lien on the shares of the 
 bankrupt in respect of an alleged liability to the com- 
 pany 6 ; and is entitled to have his name entered on the 
 books of the company without any statement that he 
 holds the shares as such trustee 7 . If there are two or 
 more trustees they may have their holding of shares 
 split into two joint holdings with their names in what 
 order they choose 8 . 
 
 The tenth clause of Table A of the schedule to 
 the English Companies Act, 1862' 9 does not apply to 
 persons claiming shares by transmission under the 
 13th clause 10 . Therefore where a company has adopted 
 Table A as its articles of association, it cannot refuse 
 to register the name of the trustee in bankruptcy of a 
 shareholder on the ground that the shareholder is 
 indebted to the company 1 . The principle established 
 
 'Drew v. Josolyne (1887), '18 Q. B. D. 590; 56 L. J. Q.'B. 490; 
 Tooth v. Hdllett (1869), L. R. 4 Oh. 242 ; 38 U. Ch. 396 
 
 'Per Blackburn, L.J., in Colonial Bank v. Whmney (1886), 11 A. L,. 
 426 ■ 56 L J. Oh. 43 ; 3 Mor. 207 ; contrast Union Bank of Manchester 
 in re Jackson (1871), L. K. 12 Bq. 354, and «» note, to section 2 W). 
 
 'In re Key & Sons, Ltd. (1902), 1 Ch. 467; 71 L. J. Ch. 254; 9 
 
 Mfl TIC Iftl 
 
 '/. re Saunders & Co. (1908) , 1 Ch. 415 ; 77 K J. Ch. 289 ; 15 Mans. 
 142 „ 
 
 'In re Saunders & Co., supra; Burns v. Siemens Bros. Dynamo 
 
 Works (1919), 1 Ch. 225. . ,. . 
 
 • 25 & 26 Vic. c. 89, which reads : *' The company may decline to 
 register any transfer of shares made by a member who is indebted to 
 them ". 
 
 10 Which reads, " any person becoming entitled to a share m con- 
 sequence of the death, bankruptcy, or insolvency of any member ■ • • 
 may be . . . registered as a member upon such evidence being pro- 
 duced as may from time to time be required by the company . 
 
 1 Re Bentham Mills Co., 11 Ch. D. 900 ; 48 L. J. C. H. 671. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 307 
 
 in Dearie v. Hall 2 as to the effect of notice in deter- Section as 
 mining priorities of equitable rights does not extend 
 to the shares of companies governed by regulations 
 having a provision similar to section 30 of The Com- 
 panies Act, 1862 3 . Where a trustee in bankruptcy of a 
 director shareholder is registered as the transferee of 
 the bankrupt in respect of his shares, without any 
 description indicating that he holds the shares in the 
 right of the bankrupt, he holds those shares "in his 
 own right" within the meaning of that phrase as a 
 requirement in the qualification of a director*. A trus- 
 tee who takes no steps to notify the company of his 
 title 5 will be postponed to a registered purchaser for 
 value from the executrix of the bankrupt . Where a 
 trustee in bankruptcy of a shareholder in a company 
 has given notice to the directors claiming the bank- 
 rupt's shares as his, but postponing his decision 
 whether he would be registered himself or have some 
 nominee registered as transferee, and the bankrupt 
 subsequently tenders for registration in his own name 
 a transfer of other shares, the directors have no author- 
 ity to refuse to register it, on the ground that the 
 trustee in bankruptcy is entitled to the shares. The 
 right of the trustee is assisted and not defeated by put- 
 ting the shares in the name of the transferee 7 . 
 
 As to the property in the possession of the debtor (4) Alleged 
 which is claimed by 'a third party on the ground that glft8, 
 it^has been given to him by the debtor, it should be 
 noted that a parol gift of a chattel capable of delivery 
 does not pass the property in the chattel without 
 delivery 8 unless the chattel is in the possession of the 
 
 2 3 Russ. 1. 
 
 * SocMte' General de Paris v. Tramways Union Co., Ltd. (1884), 
 14 Q. B. D. 424. Section 30 reads : " No notice of any trust, expressed, 
 implied or constructive, shall be entered on the Register, or be receiv- 
 able by the Registrar, in the case of the companies under this Act and 
 registered in England or Ireland ". Contrast The Dominion Companies 
 Act, R. S. C. (1906), c. 79, s. 41. 
 
 i Boschoek Proprietary Co. v. Fuke (1906), 1 Ch. 148, s 161; 75 L. J. 
 Ch. 201; 13 Mans. 100; Ex parte Harrison in re Cannock Colliery Co., 
 28 Ch. D. 363 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 554., 
 
 s Other than the publication in the Gazette of the required notice. 
 
 6 In re London & Provincial Telegraph Co. (1870) , L. R. 9 Eq. 653 ; 
 39 L. J. Ch. 419. . 
 
 * Sutton <v. English and Colonial Produce (1902), 2 Ch. 502; 71 
 L. J. Ch. 685; 10 Mans. 101. 
 
 * Cochran v. Moore, 25 Q. B. D. 57 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 377. 
 
308 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 25 
 
 (5) Miscel- 
 laneous 
 matters. 
 
 D. 
 
 Trustee 
 should per- 
 fect his title 
 to a chose in 
 action. 
 
 intended donee, in which case no further act of delivery- 
 is necessary 9 . Gifts must be distinguished from infor- 
 mal transfers for value 10 . 
 
 Property vesting in the trustee 1 includes a right 
 of set-off 2 and the debtor's reversionary interest in an 
 estate 3 . Where as in England The Bills of Sale Act 
 renders void as against a trustee in bankruptcy a bill 
 of sale which has not been registered, and a debtor 
 prior to bankruptcy gave two bills of sale covering the 
 same property, the second of which was registered, 
 the second mortgagee is entitled to such of the chat- 
 tels as have not been seized by the first mortgagee 
 before bankruptcy 4 . Except where there is some 
 offence against the bankruptcy law or some . law in 
 favour of creditors, the trustee is merely the legal 
 representative of the debtor with such rights as he 
 would have had if not bankrupt and no others 5 , and 
 where the bankrupt being in pari delicto with a defend- 
 ant could not have recovered back certain property, 
 his trustee cannot recover it back". Where property 
 of the bankrupt has been paid away by him under cir- 
 cumstances which entitle the trustee either to sue for a 
 return of the property or for damages, the trustee is 
 put to his election and cannot after recovering under 
 one remedy seek to recover under another 7 . 
 
 Included in the property of the debtor vesting in the 
 trustee are choses in action 8 . Whatever may be the 
 effect of section 11(4) on the necessity or otherwise for 
 compliance with provincial laws with respect to regis- 
 
 »In re Strickam, Stoneham v. Stoneham (1919), 1 Ch. 149; c/. 
 Shuttleworth v. McGillwary (1903), 5 O. H R. 536; Kingsmill v. 
 Kimgsmill (1917), 41 O. L. R. 238. 
 
 10 Ex parte Brown in re Dodds (1881) , 60 L. J. Q. B. 599 ; 8 Mor. 86. 
 
 1 See generally notes to 2(dd}. 
 
 2 Court v. Holland (1881), 29 Gr. 19, and see section 28. 
 'Grey v. Hatch (1871), 18 Gr. 72. 
 
 • Ex parte Leman in re Barrand (1876), 4 Ch. D. 23 ; 46 L. J, Banlt. 
 38, and see Chapter VI. 
 
 In re Mapleoach ex parte Caldeeott (1876), 4 Ch. D. 150; 13 
 Cox. 374. 
 
 'S. C. and see Chapter VI. 
 
 'Smith v. Baker (1873), L.' R. 8 C. P. 350; 42 L. J. C. P, 155: 
 Vernon v. Hanson (1788), 2 T, R. 287; Smith v. Hodson (1791), 2 
 S. L. C. 139 ; 4 T. R. 211. 
 
 8 See as to definition and examples of choses in action, notes to 
 section 2 ( dd ) . 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 309 
 
 tration of documents, it is clear that that section has Section 25 
 no reference to the rule of law that a trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy must give notice 9 in order to perfect his title to 
 a chose in action 10 . The grounds of this decision are 
 first that bankruptcy is not notice to all the world ; and 
 secondly, that the vesting of the property of the bank- 
 rupt in the trustee by operation of law has no higher 
 effect than a vesting of the same property by act of 
 parties ; the equitable doctrine enunciated in Dearie v. 
 Hall 1 applying in each case 2 . By so perfecting his title 
 the trustee will acquire priority over an assignee to 
 whom the bankrupt has assigned a chose in action 
 
 9 Or in the case of a fund in court obtain a stop order: Stuart v. 
 Cockerell (1869) , L. R. 8 Eq. 607 ; 39 L. J. Oh. 127. 
 
 10 In re Barr's Trusts (1857), 4 K. & J. 219 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 548; 
 In re Brown's Trusts, L. R. 5 Eq. 8S; In re Atkinson (1852), 2 D. M. 
 & G. 140; Palmer v. Locke (1881), 18 Ch. D. 381, 385, 386; 51 L. J. Ch. 
 124 ; 45 L. T. 229 ; 30 W. tt. 419. It was previously held on the wording 
 of the English Act of 1849, 12 & 13 Vic. c. 106, k. 141, that an assign- 
 ment after bankruptcy by a bankrupt of a reversionary interest does 
 not prevail against the title of the trustee, for the bankrupt had no 
 power to deal with the property: In re Combes' Trusts (1859), 1 Giff. 
 91; In re Blight's Settlement (1S79), 13 Ch. D. 413; 28 W. R. 551; 
 42 L. T. 308; and see McEntire v. Potter & Co. (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 
 438 ; 60 L. T. 600 ; 37 W. R. 607. 
 
 'The leading case of Dearie v. Hall (1828), 3 Russ. 1, laid down 
 the principle that where a fund is legally vested in trustees an assignee or 
 incumbrancer who first gives notice to the trustees has a better title 
 in equity than an assignee or incumbrancer of earlier date, who has 
 not given such notice. By such notice the legal holders are converted 
 into trustees for the new purchaser and are charged with responsibility 
 toward him, and the cestui que trust is deprived of the power of carrying 
 the same security into the market, and of inducing third persons to 
 advance money upon it. See per Herschell, L.C, in Ward v. Duncombe 
 (1893), A. C. 369; 69 L. T. 121; 42 W. R. 59. It makes no 
 difference that there was no negligence on the part of the first 
 incumbrancer, who never knew of the charge created in his favour, 
 for the doctrine rests on other grounds beside the ground of laches : 
 Ex parte Cavendish in re Lake (1903) , 1 K. B. 151 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 117 ; 
 10 Mans. 17 ; English and Scottish Mercantile Investment Co. v. Brun- 
 ton (1892), 2 Q. B. 1; 66 L. T. 767; Dearie v. Hall has been followed 
 In re Freshfield's Trusts (1879), 11 Ch. D. 198: Montefiore v. Guedalla 
 (1903), 2 Ch. 26; 72 L. J. Ch. 442; 88 L. T. 496; Marchant v. Morton 
 (1901), 2 K. B. 829; 85 L. T. 169; Ex parte Cavendish in re Lake 
 (1903), 1 K. B. 151; 72 L. J. K. B. 117; 10 Mans. 17; English and 
 Scottish Mercantile Investment Co. v. Brunton (1892), 2 Q. B. 1 ; 66 
 L. T. 767 ; In re Dallas (1904) , 2 Ch. 385 ; 73 L. J. Ch. 365 ; Dearie v. 
 Hall was distinguished in In re Richards, 45 Ch. D. 589 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 
 728 ; SociitS General v. Walker, 11 A. C. 20 ; 55 L,. J. Q. B. 169 ; and in 
 Ward v. Duncombe, supra. 
 
 2 See also In re Stone's Will (1893), W. N. 50; and cf. In re Lon- 
 don & Provincial Telegraph Co. (1870), Iv R. 9 Eq. 653; 39 L. J. Ch. 
 419; Brown's Trusts, L. R. 5 Eq. 88; Stuart v. Cockerell (1869), L. R. 
 8 Eq. 607 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 127. 
 
310 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 25 acquired after the date of the bankruptcy, who has 
 ~ ~ not first perfected his title 8 , but as the trustee 
 
 stands in the shoes of the bankrupt . and is not an 
 assignee for value of a chose m action, he cannot by 
 giving notice obtain priority over a prior equitable 
 encumbrancer to whom the property was assigned by 
 the bankrupt prior to the effective date of bankruptcy 4 , 
 The same principle applies where there have been 
 two adjudications, one in New Zealand and one iii Eng- 
 land. Though the trustee in -England is the first to dis- 
 cover a chose in action to which the bankrupt was 
 entitled, and the first to give notice to the person in 
 possession of the trust funds, the English trustee does 
 not gain priority over the New Zealand trustee to whom 
 all the moveable property of the bankrupt wheresoever 
 situate has already passed 5 . As a matter of precau- 
 tion, the trustee in bankruptcy should himself give 
 notice to the trustee of the trust fund in order to per- 
 fect his title, although this is not necessary ; for so long 
 as the trustee of the trust fund obtains notice from 
 any source, which brings his mind to an intelligent 
 apprehension of the true facts, so that an ordinary 
 man of business would regulate his conduct by the 
 information obtained, that will be sufficient 8 ; but 
 notice to solicitors for trustees is not notice to the 
 trustees 7 . Where notice of the assignment is given to 
 all the trustees in existence at the time of the assign- 
 ment, it is unnecessary to give any further notice even 
 though all the trustees die or retire 8 ; but it has been 
 
 3 Mercer v.. Vans Gollina (1900), 1 Q. B. 130 n ; 67 L. J. Q. B. 424; 
 4 Mans. 363; In re BealVex parte 0. B. (1899), 1 Q. B. 688; 68 L. J. 
 Q. B. 462 ; 6 Mans. 163. 
 
 4 In re Wallis ex parte Jenks (1902), 1 K.'B. 719; 71 L. J. K. B. 
 465; 9 Mans. 136. 
 
 5 In re Anderson (1911) , 1 K. B. 896 ; SO L. J. K. B. 919 ; 18 Mans. 
 216. 
 
 'Lloyd v. Banks (1868), L. E. 3 Ch. 488; 37 L. 'J. Ch. 881; see 
 however in the case of choses in action acquired after the bankruptcy. 
 In such case mere knowledge of the bankruptcy seems not to be sufficient : 
 In re Behrend's Trust (1911), 1 Ch. 687; 80 L. J. Ch. 394; 18 Mans. 
 111. 
 
 7 Saffron Walden v. Bayner (1880), L. K. 14 Ch. D. 406. 
 
 "In 're Wasdale ex parte Brittin v. Partridge (1899), 1 Ch. 163; 
 6S L. J. Ch. 117; and see Timson v. Ramsoottom (1837), 2 Keen 35; 
 In re Hall, L. OR. 7 Ir. 180; Ward v. Buncombe (1893), A. C. 369; 69 
 L. T. 121 ; 42 W. E. 59. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 311 
 
 held that where an assignee gives notice to one only of section 25 
 several trustees, and that trustee dies before notice is 
 received of the second assignment, the earlier assignee 
 loses his priority". On the other hand where notice is 
 given to one of two trustees of both the first and second 
 assignments, notice being given to the other trustee of 
 the second assignment only, and the first mentioned 
 trustee thereafter dies, his death will not give the 
 second assignment priority over the first 10 , unless the, 
 bankrupt is himself that trustee, when the knowledge 
 which he has is not imputed to the other trustees 1 . 
 Case's of assignment of choses in action must be dis- 
 tinguished from cases where the trustee on becoming 
 legal owner of real property through the vesting of the 
 estate in him acquires the right to the payment of the 
 balance of the purchase money, which in such a case is 
 not a chose in action. If therefore the purchaser with- 
 out notice of the title of the trustee pays the balance of 
 the purchase money to the bankrupt, he will have to 
 pay it over again before he can obtain a conveyance of 
 the property 2 . 
 
 There is no provision in the Canadian Act to cor- 
 respond with section 48(5) of the English Act, which 
 reads : 
 
 "Where any part of the property of the bankrupt consists of 
 things in action, such things shall he deemed to have been duly 
 assigned to the trustee." 
 
 This section appears to have been enacted having 
 in contemplation section 36 and and 37 Vic. c. 66, sec- 
 tion 25(6) of The English Judicature Act, which has 
 been copied in most of the Provinces of Common Law 
 jurisdiction 3 . 
 
 Tvmson v. Ramsbottom, supra; In re Hall, L. It. 7 Ir. 180 ; In re 
 Phillips' Trusts (1903), '1 Ch. 183; 70 L. J. Ch. 94. 
 
 10 Ward v. Buncombe (1893), A. C. 369 ; 69 L. T, 121. 
 
 1 Browne v. Savage (1859), 4 Drew 635; Lloyd's Bank v. Pearson 
 (1901), 1 Ch.865; 70 L. J. Ch. 422; In re Dallas (1904), 2 Ch. 385; 
 73 L. J. Ch. 365. 
 
 2 Ex parte RabUdge in re Pooley (1878), 8 Ch. D. 367; 48 L J 
 Bank. '15. 
 
 8 Sections 36 and 37 Vic. c. 66; section 25(6) reads: 
 
 Any absolute assignment, by writing under the band of the assignor 
 
 (not purporting to be by way 'of charge only), of any debt or other legal 
 
 chose in action, of which express notice in writing shall have been given 
 
 to the debtor, trustee, or other person from whom the assignor would 
 
312 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 25 Where a receiving order has been made, the pro- 
 e7 perty of the debtor divisible among his creditors 
 ia'proper^r includes all property which may be acquired by or 
 devolve on him before his discharge. There is no such 
 provision in the case of an authorized assignment. By 
 virtue of the rule of law first laid down in Cohen v. 
 Mitchell, 4, and now given statutory form in section 
 34(1) of the Act, the after-acquired property of .the 
 bankrupt vests in the trustee in a qualified sense until 
 he intervenes, when it vests indef easibly in him 5 . Thus 
 where a bankrupt purports to make an assignment of 
 an after-acquired chose in action, the trustee by giving 
 notice or by obtaining a stop order will effectively 
 intervene, and will obtain priority if his notice or stop 
 order is the first in point of time 6 . All the after- 
 acquired personal earnings of a bankrupt, over and 
 above what is required for the maintenance of his 
 
 have been entitled to receive or claim such debt or chose in action, shall 
 be, and be deemed to 'have been effectual in lay (subject to all equities 
 which would have been entitled to priority over the right of the assignee 
 if this Act had not passed), to pass and transfer the legal right to such 
 debt or chose in action from the date of such notice, and all legal and 
 other remedies for the same, and the power to give a good discharge for 
 the same, without the concurrence of the assignor : Provided always, 
 that if the debtor, trustee, or other person liable in respect of such debt 
 or chose in action shall have had notice that such assignment is disputed 
 by the assignor or any one claiming under him, or of any other opposing 
 or conflicting claims to such debt or chose in action, he shall be entitled, 
 if he think fit, to call upon the several persons making claim thereto to 
 interplead concerning the same, or he may, if he think fit, pay the same 
 into the High Court of Justice under and in conformity with the provi- 
 sions of the Acts for the relief of trustees. 
 
 " Debt or other chose in action " means a debt or right which the 
 common law looks on as not assignable by reason of its being a chose in 
 action, but which a Court of Equity deals with as being, assignable:" 
 TorMngton.Y. Magee (1902), 2 K. B. 427; 72 L. J. K. B. 712; and see 
 Dawson v. G. N. and City Railway (1905), 1 K. B. 260, 270; 74 L. J. 
 K.B. 190. One of the results of this enactment is that when an abso- 
 lute assignment has been made in writing, under the hand of the 
 assignor, and when the assignee has given the prescribed notice he may 
 bring an action at law in his own name without being incumbered with 
 having to sue in the name of the assignor, or of having to make him a 
 party to the action : Walker v. Bradford Old Bank (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 
 511 ; 53 L, J. Q. B. 280. 
 
 4 (1890) , 25 Q. B. D. 262 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 409 ; 7 Mor. 207. 
 
 "Sill v. Settle (1917), 1 Ch. 319; and see further on the distinction 
 formerly laid down as to the difference in vesting in the cases of after- 
 acquired real property and after-acquired personal property : In re New 
 Land Development Association & Gray (1892), 2 Ch. 138 f 61 L. J. Ch. 
 495 ; O. R. v. Cooke (1906) , 2 Ch. 661 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 757 ; 13 Mans. 337. 
 
 Mercer v. Vans Colina (1897), 67 L. J. Q. B. 424; 4 Mans. 363. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 313 
 
 family, can be claimed by the trustee'. The profits section 85 
 from a business are not "personal earnings," even 
 though the business involves a large amount of per- 
 sonal skill 8 . It is no test as to whether moneys are 
 "personal earnings" to enquire whether they are the 
 result of more or less continuous employment so that 
 there is some element of periodicity attached to them 9 . 
 All contracts made by the debtor before his assign- 
 ment or bankruptcy are the property of the trustee ; 
 and all contracts made after his bankruptcy and before 
 his discharge also are the property of the trustee. This 
 rule applies to life insurance as well as to other con- 
 tracts. The benefit of any insurance so effected by the 
 debtor belongs to the trustee; and if after the bank- 
 rupt's discharge he or any other volunteer pays the 
 succeeding premiums, he pays them for the benefit of 
 the contract vested in the trustee, who will be entitled 
 to the policy moneys when they fall due 10 . But where 
 the' trustee stands by with knowledge and allows the 
 premiums to be paid by the debtor's wife, the trustee 
 
 7 In re Hancock (1904) , 1 K. B. 585 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 245 ; 11 Mans. 
 1 ; Clarkson v. White (1884), 4 O. R. 663 ; In re Rogers ex parte Collins 
 (1894), 1 Q. B. 425; 63 L. J. Q. B. 178; 1 Mans. 387; In re Graydon 
 ex pwte O. R. (1896), 1 Q. B. 417; 65 L. J. Q. B. 328; 3 Mans. 5; 
 In re Roberts (1900), 1 Q. B. 122; 69 L. J. Q. B. 19; 7 Mans. 5; 
 Clarkson v. White (1884), 4 O. R. 663. Cases of compensation for 
 breach of a contract to employ a man in futuro should be distinguished 
 from actions for the recovery of " personal earnings " which are due : 
 Wailing v. Oliphant (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 145; 45 L. J. Q. B. 173; see 
 further as to the trustee's right to sue for " personal earnings," notes on 
 Rights of Action, ante. 
 
 'Elliott v. Clayton (1851), 16 Q. B. D. 581; 20 L. J. Q. B 217- 
 Emden v. Carte (1881), 17 Ch. D. 169, 768; 50 L. J. Ch. 492; In re 
 Rogers ex parte Collins, supra; In re Bowling ex parte Banks (1877) 
 4 Oh. D. 689; 46 L. J. Bank. 74; Crofton v. Pool (1830), 1 B. & Ad 
 568, and compare Silk v. Osborne (1794) , 1 Esp. 140. 
 
 'Per BucHey, J., in Affleck v. Hammond (1912), 3 K. B. 162; 81 
 L. J. K. B. 565 ; 19 Mans. Ill ; see contra, Mercer v. Vans Co'lina 
 (1897), 67 L. J. Q. B. 424; 4 Mans. 363; and seei Byrne v. Henry 
 (1892), 9 Mor. 213. See as to the distinction under the English Act 
 between " personal earnings " and salary or income, In re Jones ex parte 
 Lloyd (1891), 2 Q. B. 231; 60 L. J. Q. B. 751; 8 Mor. 210; In re and 
 ex parte Shine (1892), 1 Q. B. 522; 61 L. J. Q. B. 253; 9 Mor. 40; and 
 see further as to salary or income under the English Act: Hollinshead v 
 Hazelton (1916), A. C. 428; 85 L. J. P. C. 60; (1916) H. B. R. 85. 
 
 10 In re Leslie, Leslie v. French (1883) , 28 Ch. D. 552 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 
 762; In re Stokes ex parte Hellish (1919), 2 K. B. 256- 88 L J K B 
 794; (1918-19), B. & C. R. 208; Tapster v. Ward (1909), IoVt *2o' 
 503; In re Phillips ex parte 0. R. (1914), 2 K. B. 680; S3 L J K B 
 1364; 21 Mans. 144. ' ' ' 
 
314 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 25 will not be permitted by the court to intervene and take 
 the policy moneys without making an allowance to the 
 wife 11 . 
 
 Where a bankrupt, being issue of the testator, to 
 whom realty or personalty is devised for an estate not 
 determinable at or before the death of the bankrupt, 
 dies in the lifetime of the testator leaving issue, and 
 such issue is living at the time of the death of the tes- 
 tator, the devise or bequest will not lapse in those pro- 
 vinces in which the equivalent of section 33 of the 
 English Wills Act (1837) 1 Vic. c. 26, is in force 12 ,, but 
 unless a contrary intention appears by the will, the 
 devise or bequest will take effect as if the death of the 
 bankrupt had happened immediately . after the- death 
 of the testator, and consequently the property in ques- 
 tion being property devolving on the bankrupt before 
 his discharge will vest in his trustee in bankruptcy 
 and not in his legal personal representative 1 . 
 
 Property acquired after the making of a receiving 
 order, but before discharge, belongs where there are 
 two or more receiving orders to the trustee under the 
 first receiving order 2 . 
 f. The time from which the capacity to exercise pow- 
 
 t^xS Uy ers vests in the trustee is from "the date of the said 
 powers. petition or assignment" 3 . The words in 25(a) are "at 
 the date of the presentation of any bankruptcy peti- 
 tion, or at the date of the execution of an authorized 
 assignment." It is only the capacity to exercise those 
 powers which the debtor might exercise for his own 
 benefit which pass to the trustee. The trustee can exer- 
 cise the power by deed in a manner in which the bank- 
 rupt could exercise it ; but he cannot so exercise it after 
 
 11 In re Tyler ex parte 0. R. (1907), 1 K. B. 865; 76 L. J. K. B. 
 541 ; 14 Mans. 73. 
 
 "See R. S. O. (1914), c. 120, s. 37. 
 
 '!» re Pearson, Smith v. Pearson (1920), 1 Ch. 247; 89 L. J, Ch. 
 123; (1920), B. & C. R. 38. 
 
 2 In re Clark ex parte Beardmore (1894) , 2 Q. B. 393 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 
 806 ; 1 Mans. 207. The English practice is different since section 39 of 
 the Act of 1914 was passed: In re Cullioick ex parte O. R. (1918), 1 
 K. B. 646; 87 I/. J. K. B. 827; (1918-19), B. & O. R. 33; In re Cohen 
 ex parte O. R. (1918-19), B. & C. R. 214. 
 
 'Section 25(6). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 315. 
 
 the death of the bankrupt 4 . It was held by Farwell, J., J«*iona6_ 
 that the -capacity of releasing the power of appoint- 
 ment for his own benefit possessed by the donee of a 
 limited power of appointment cannot on his bank- 
 ruptcy be exercised by his trustee in bankruptcy for 
 the benefit of his estate 5 . It has been decided by War- 
 rington, J., that the property of the debtor divisible 
 among his creditors does not include a fund over which 
 the bankrupt has a general testamentary power of 
 appointment 6 . A bankrupt may not by the exercise of 
 a power of appointment defeat the interest of his 
 trustee 7 . Powers generally are treated in Sugden on 
 Powers, Farwell on Powers, and Halsbury Laws of 
 England, vol. 23 8 . 
 
 There is no section in The Bankruptcy Act similar 
 to section 48(3) of the English Act of 1914, which 
 gives the trustee the right to transfer shares of the 
 bankrupt. The reason for this omission will remain 
 a matter for speculation 9 . 
 
 26 (1) No property of an estate of a bankrupt Property , 
 or of an authorized assignor shall bej^^f"®' 
 removed out of the province where such pro- Province, 
 perty was at the date when any receiving 
 
 * Nichols to Nixey (1885), 29 Ch. D. 1005; 55 L. J. Ch. 146; Ex 
 parte Gilchrist in re Armstrong (1886) , 17 Q. B. D. 521 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 
 778; 3 Mor. 193. 
 
 5 J» re Rose (1904), 2 Ch. 348; 73 L. J. Ch. 726; following In re 
 Hirst (1892), W. N. 177; but in the Court of Appeal no opinion was 
 expressed on this point: In re Rose (1905), 1 Ch. 94; 74 L. J. Ch. 22; 
 11 Mans. 347. 
 
 "In re Guedalla (1905), 2 Ch. 331; 75 L. 3. Ch. 52; 12 Mans. 392. 
 See remarks on this case in the Court of Appeal : In re Benxon, Bower v. 
 Chetwynd (1914), 2 Ch. 68, 74; 83 L. J. Ch. 658; 58 Sol. J. 430; 21 
 Mans. 8. 
 
 '/re re Cooper (1884), 27 Ch. D. 565. 
 
 "As to exercise of power by married woman, see Ex parte Gilchrist 
 in re Armstrong (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 521; 55 L. J. Q. B. 578; 3 Mor. 
 193. 
 
 "Under the English Act it has been held that a trustee who is not 
 upon the register has no right to vote ; and that so long as the name of 
 the bankrupt remains upon the register he has, even though he has mort- 
 gaged his shares to unregistered third parties and the trustee has dis- 
 claimed whatever beneficial interest the bankrupt may have in the shares, 
 a voting power as between the real owners and the other shareholders 
 by reason of being on the register: Wise v. Landsdell (1920), B. & C. R. 
 145. 
 
316 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 27 
 
 Moneys to 
 be deposited 
 in bank. 
 
 Not into 
 
 private 
 
 account. 
 
 order or authorized assignment was made, 
 without the permission in writing of the in- 
 spectors or the order of the court in which 
 proceedings under this Act are being carried 
 on or within the jurisdiction of which such 
 property is situate. 
 
 (2) The trustee shall deposit in a chartered 
 bank the proceeds of the sale of any pro- 
 perty of the estate of the bankrupt or the 
 authorized assignor and all other moneys 
 realized on account of any trust estate which 
 he is administering under this Act and he 
 shall not withdraw or remove therefrom, 
 without the permission in writing of the 
 inspectors or the order of the court, any such 
 moneys, except for payment of dividends 
 and other charges incidental to the adminis- 
 tration of the estate. 
 
 (3) No trustee in a bankruptcy or under any 
 authorized assignment or composition or 
 scheme of arrangement shall pay any sums 
 received by him as trustee into his private 
 banking account. 
 
 Cross References Act: Inspectors, 43 ! courts and jurisdiction, 
 63 et seq.; property of bankrupt, 25 & 2(dd} ; duties and powers of 
 trustee, 17 et seq.; power of trustee to sell, 20(1) (o) ; offences, 96. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. S3; Canadian Act, 
 1875, s. 45; Provincial Assignments Acts, R. S. O. 1914, c. 134, s. 29; 
 R. S. M. 1913, K . 12, ». 36. 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921, sec. 20, 
 amended section 26(1) (2) by substituting the word 
 "permission" for "consent". The amendment has 
 been made in the text printed here. 
 
 Under The Insolvent Act of 1875, the trustee was 
 required to keep a separate account for each trust 
 estate administered by him 10 . 
 
 Continuance 
 of business 
 by trustee. 
 
 27. If the trustee is directed to continue the 
 business of a debtor he may incur obliga- 
 tions and make necessary or advisable 
 
 10 (1875), 38 Vic. c. 16, s. 45 (Dom.). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 317 
 
 advances, which obligations and advances section 27 
 so incurred or made shall be discharged or 
 repaid to the trustee out of the assets of the 
 debtor in priority to the claims of the credi- 
 tors. Provided that, — 
 (a) the creditors or inspectors may by reso- 
 lution limit the amount of the obligations 
 or advances which may be made or paid 
 by the trustee in the continuance of the 
 business or the period of time for the con- 
 tinuance of the business ; and, 
 (&) the trustee shall not be under obligation 
 to continue the business if in his opinion 
 the realizable value of the assets of the 
 debtor is insufficient to fully protect him 
 against possible loss from so doing, and 
 if the creditors, upon demand made by the 
 trustee, neglect or refuse to secure him 
 against such possible loss, 
 (c) If the creditors, within ten days after Trustee 
 demand by the trustee (made to the m- e * r7 . ine0D t 
 
 , J \ „ business of 
 
 spectors or at any meeting 01 creditors debtor may 
 called by the trustee for the purpose of court fo°r sale 
 making such demand) refuse or neglect ? f ? ro ?! rt £ 
 to repay to the trustee all money advances creditors 
 made by him or obtained in whole or in^^tTo 
 part upon his credit or responsibility and Ie ^ 
 to secure the trustee to an extent ade- a 
 quate in his opinion or (if the trustee and 
 the creditors cannot agree) in that of the 
 court, in respect of all liabilities incurred 
 or which may be incurred by the trustee 
 in so carrying on the business of the 
 debtor, the court may, upon application 
 of the trustee, order that the property of ^dilll 
 the debtor be offered for sale by tender, to 
 be addressed to and opened by the court, 
 at any time to be named by the court, and 
 after such advertisement and opening of 
 any tenders received and subject to the 
 directions and approval of the court, sell 
 
318 . 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 27 
 
 Court may 
 permit 
 trustee to 
 purchase 
 property if 
 tenders are 
 insufficient. 
 
 the whole or any part of the property of 
 the debtor and apply the proceeds to the 
 payment of the advances, liabilities, 
 expenses and proper costs made and in- 
 curred by the trustee in the administra- 
 tion of the estate of the debtor. 
 (d) If the property of a debtor shall be so 
 offered for sale and, within thirty days 
 after the time set far the opening of ten- 
 ders, no tender or offer of an amount 
 sufficient to repay the advances made and 
 liabilities incurred by the trustee and 
 also his proper costs and expenses, shall 
 be received by the court, then the court 
 may, after such notice to the debtor and 
 the creditors as to it may seem proper, 
 permit the trustee, in his personal capa- 
 city, to bid such a sum as , shall be suf- 
 ficient to repay him his advances, costs, 
 expenses, and the amount of any liabili- 
 ties incurred by him and reasonable 
 remuneration and (conditional upon no 
 higher bid being received before actual 
 vesting of the property in him in his per- 
 sonal capacity) to purchase the whole or 
 any part of such property at such prices 
 and upon such terms as shall be approved 
 by the court. If the trustee shall so pur- 
 chase the whole or any part of such pro- 
 perty it shall pass to and vest in him in 
 his personal capacity when the court shall 
 so order, whereupon all rights and inter- 
 ests of the debtors and the creditors in or 
 to it shall become determined and ended. 
 
 Cross References Act: Trustee may carry on the business, 13(3), 
 20(1) (6) ; trustee may appoint debtor to carry on his trade, 21; priority 
 of claims, 51. 
 
 Section 27(c) (d) was first enacted by section 24 of 
 : The Bankruptcy Adt Amendment Act, 1921./ 
 
 The wisdom of the provision contained in section 
 27(d), under which the court may permit "the trustee 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.. 319 
 
 to purchase property, was much debated in the House section 28 
 of Commons when the amendment was proposed. As 
 to' other cases where the trustee has been allowed to 
 purchase see notes to sections 20(1) (a) and 43. 
 
 28 (1) The law of set-off shall apply to allLawof.^ 
 claims made against the estate, and also to ap piy. 
 all actions instituted by the trustee for the 
 recovery of debts due to the debtor in the 
 same manner and to the same extent as if 
 the debtor were plaintiff or defendant, as 
 the case may be, except in so far as any claim 
 for set-off shall be affected by the provisions 
 of this Act respecting frauds or fraudulent 
 preferences. • i 
 
 (2) If any debtor who has made an authorized H °w claims 
 
 . , • , i • • are to rank 
 
 assignment or against whom a receiving where 
 order has been made, owes or owed debts fifates^ 
 both individually and as a member of one or 
 more different oo-partnerships, the claims 
 shall rank first upon the estate by which the ' 
 debts they represent were contracted, and 
 shall only rank upon the other or others 
 after all the creditors of such other estate, 
 or estates have been paid in full. 
 
 Cross References Act: Debts provable, 44 ; actions by trustee, 
 20(1) (c) ; fraudulent preferences, 31, 3(c) ; fraudulent conveyance, 
 3(b) ; settlements, 29; applicability of joint and separate estate in pay- 
 ment of joint and separate debts, 51(3). 
 
 Analogous Legislation to section 28(1) : Canadian Acts, 1875, 
 s. 107 ; 1869, s. 124. English Acts, 1914, s. 31 ; 1883, s. 38 ; 1869, s. 39. 
 Winding-up Act, 1906, s. 71. English Companies Act, 1562, s. 101. 
 Ontario Assignments Act, 1914, s. 31. Manitoba Assignments Act, 1913, 
 s. 26. 
 
 To section 2S(2) : Canadian Acts, 1875, s. 88 ; 1869, s. 64. English 
 Act, 1914, s. 33(6). Ontario Assignments Act, 1914, s. 10. Manitoba 
 Assignments Act, 1913, s. 27. 
 
320" 
 
 Til® BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 28 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Difference between English and Canadian provisions. 
 
 Set-off and counterclaim. 
 
 Eight to set-off must be mutual. 
 
 No set-off against calls on shares. 
 
 Set-off and preference. 
 
 Time when mutual relationship must exist. 
 
 Debts accruing due. 
 
 Set-off generally. 
 
 Knowledge of insolvency immaterial. 
 
 Incorporation of bankruptcy provisions in a deed. 
 
 Section 28(2). 
 
 Section 28(1) has been taken from the Canadian 
 Act of 1875, section 107; which section was copied 
 into the Ontario and other Provincial Assignments 
 Acts, and with some changes into The Canadian Wind- 
 ing-Up Act. It is perhaps unfortunate that the word- 
 ing of the corresponding English section 1 , was not 
 followed. By importing the practice of set-off as it 
 exists in the different provinces in actions between 
 plaintiff and defendant, further opportunity is given 
 for diversity in the bankruptcy forum, and the well 
 defined rules of bankruptcy administration which have 
 been developed under the English practice will not 
 always be applicable. The French version of the Act 
 renders "The law of set-off" by "La loi des com- 
 pensations. ' ' In Quebec there is compensation but no 
 ■ set-off 2 . It will, no doubt, be found that section 28(1) 
 has in Quebec a somewhat similar effect to section 71 
 of The Winding-up Act, that is to say while no right of 
 compensation is taken away the right to be enforced 
 must be one which would have existed had the debtor 
 not been brought under, the operation of the Act 3 . 
 Difference There is a marked difference between this section 
 
 English and and the English Act with respect to set-off*, for the 
 provisions. right of set-off in bankruptcy under the English prac- 
 
 1 Section 31. 
 
 2 Arts. 1187-1197 Civil Code: Yanier v. Kent (1902), Q. R. 11 K. B. 
 373, 385, and see Ryland v. DelAsle, 6 Moore P. C. (N. S.) 325; Oilfum 
 v Court, 13 R. L. 619 (Q. B.) ; Perkins v Ross, 6 Q. L. R. 65 (Q. B.) ; 
 Riddell v. Goold, M. L. R. 51 S. C. 170; Exchange Bank v. Canadian 
 Bank of Commerce, M. L. R. 2 Q. B. 476; Communante des Soeurs v. 
 Kent, Q ,R 13 K. B. 483. 
 
 8 Vanier v. Kent, supra. 
 
 4 Mason v. Macdonald (1880), 45 U. C. Q. B. 113, and see English 
 Act, 1914, s. 31. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 321 
 
 tice does not rest on the same principle as the right Section 28 
 of set-off between solvent parties. The latter was first 
 given in England by the Statutes of set-off 5 , to prevent 
 cross-actions; but under the wording of the English 
 Bankruptcy Statutes the object is not to avoid cross- 
 actions, but to do substantial justice between the 
 parties where a debt is really due from the bankrupt 
 to the debtor or his estate 6 . Under the English section 
 all claims provable in bankruptcy can be set-off pro- 
 vided there is mutuality, and provided an account 
 can be taken when the set-off arises 7 . Thus the English 
 section allows a set-off for unliquidated damages when 
 these are provable 8 . 
 
 Semble, set-off is a matter of procedure and gov-' 
 erned by the lex fori 9 In most provincial jurisdictions 
 the law of setoff is governed by the Judicature Acts 
 and Rules of Practice 10 . 
 
 Set-off is to be distinguished from counterclaim 1 , Set-off ana 
 but in some provincial jurisdictions a discretion is claim, 
 given to the trial judge to give judgment for the bal- 
 ance of a counterclaim after deducting what the plain- 
 tiff has recovered on the judgment 2 . 
 
 5 2 Geo. II. c. 22, s. 13, and 8 Geo. II. c. 24. s. 4. 
 
 •Per Park, B., in Forster v. Wilson (1843), 12 M. & W. 191. The 
 court there said that the " mutual credit " clause in the set-off section of 
 the English Bankruptcy Act did not authorize a set-off where the debt 
 though legally due to the debtor from the bankrupt, wag really due to him 
 as trustee for another, and though recoverable in a cross-action would 
 not have been recovered for his own benefit. 
 
 'Booth v. Hutchinson (1872), L. R. 15 Eq. 30; 42 L. J. Ch. 492; 
 In re Mid-Kent Fruit Factory (1896), 1 Ch. 567; 65 L. J. Ch. 250; 3 
 Mans. 59; In re Daintry ex parte Mont (1900), 1 Q. B. 546; 69 L. J. 
 Q. B. 207; 7 Mans. 107; Palmer v. Day (1895), 2 Q. B. 618; 64 L. J. 
 Q. B. 807; 2 Mans. 386; In re Rushford ex parte Holmes (1906), 95 
 L. T. 807; 14 Mans. 135; In re H. E. Thome & Son, Ltd. (1914), 2 
 Ch. 438. 
 
 "Booth v. Hutchinson, supra; Jack v. Kipping (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 
 113 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 463 ; In re Mid-Kent Fruit Factory, supra. 
 
 'Macfarlane v. Norris (1862), 2 B. & S. 788. 
 
 10 Set-off generally is treated in Halsbury, Laws of England, Vol. 25, 
 pp. 481 et seq; Holmested'g Ontaro Judicature Act. 4th ed., pp. 297-8. 
 516-519; Seton on Decrees; MacKenzie & Chitty. 1920, Annual Prac- 
 tice, pp. 242 et seq., et passim, and see Mason v. MacDonald (1880) 45 
 U. C. Q. B. 113, and Rose v. Hart, II. S. L. C. 
 
 1 Gates v. Seagram (1909), 10 O. L. E. 216; Grain v. Wade (1917)., 
 55 S. C. R. 209; Thompson v. Big Cities (1910), 21 O. L R 394- 
 Grills v. Farah (1910). 21 O. L. R. 457. 
 
 'McGregor v. Campbell (1909), 19 M. L. R. 38; 11 W. L. R. 153. 
 
 B.C.— 21 
 
322 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Right to 
 set-off must 
 be mutual. 
 
 Section 28 The following notes on the subject of set-off are gen- 
 eral, being based partly on the provisions of the English 
 Bankruptcy and Companies Acts. It must not be 
 assumed that they correctly represent the law under 
 The Bankruptcy Act in all of the provinces. 
 
 The right of set-off must generally 3 be mutual 4 ; 
 and a misf easant can not set off moneys due him from 
 the bankrupt against sums due for misfeasance 5 . / But 
 where the claims are "mutual" and the justice of the 
 case calls for the right of set-off, the court will go far 
 to ascertain the meaning of obscure enactments and 
 to attach a rational and beneficial meaning to them 6 . 
 There are "mutual dealings" admitting of set-off 
 where the contract on which the trustee sues was 
 entered into before the date of the receiving order, 
 if the property became in equity the property of the 
 purchaser at that time 7 . A director held liable in 
 winding-up proceedings for misappropriation of the 
 companies' money cannot set-off against that liability 
 a debt due from the company 8 . As the parties who 
 initiate or intervene on a taxation are personally liable 
 for the costs of the taxation a trustee in bankruptcy, 
 who by so intervening obtains a reduction in a bill of 
 costs presented against an insolvent, is entitled to an 
 order that the solicitors pay the costs, of the taxation 
 to him; and they will not be allowed to set-off this 
 amount against their bill 9 . 
 
 There is no mutuality between the claim of a 
 on'shate? S liquidator of a company against a shareholder for 
 calls, and the claim of a shareholder against the com- 
 pany with respect to matters unconnected with his 
 liability on the shares, and consequently no right of 
 
 * As to an exception see Ea> parte Eyre (1841) , 2 M. D. & D. 66, 
 and see Turner v. Thomas (1871), I>. R. 6 0. P. 610; 40 L. J. C. P. 271. 
 
 4 See Lister v Hooson (1908), 1KB. 174, where a settlement was 
 set aside. 
 
 'Bailey Cobalt Mines, Ltd. v. Benson (1919), 44 O. L. 1R. 1. 
 
 "Per Jessell. M.R., in Mersey Steel and Iron Co. v. Naylor (1882), 
 9 Q. B. D. 648 affd. in (1884), 9 A.O. 434 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 576. 
 
 ' In re Taylor ex parte Norvell (1910) , 1 K. B. 562 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 
 610; 17 Mans. 145; 54 S. J. 271. 
 
 "In re Anglo-French Co-operative Society ex parte Petty (1882), 21 
 Ch. D. 492; Re Bailey Cooalt Mines, Ltd. (1919), 44 O. U R. 1- 
 
 "in re Roaers & Farewell (1890), 14 P. 1R. 38. 
 
 No set-off 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 323 
 
 set-off 10 .- This rule is subject in England to the exeep- Section as 
 tion that where the shareholder), who has a claim 
 against the company becomes bankrupt and the com- 
 pany is being wound up, the debt may be set-off against 
 the calls whether the claim be made in the bankruptcy 
 or in the winding-up 1 . It has also been decided in 
 Canada that section 71 of The Winding-Up Act allows 
 a set-off against calls made before the company went 
 into liquidation, there being no. such section in the 
 English Act 2 . In an action in which a set-off is pleaded 
 the claim and set-off remain two distinct and sepa- 
 rate debts until judgment so that the right of set- 
 off cannot be insisted on by a contributory in wind- 
 ing-up proceedings, even though the defence of set-off 
 had been asserted in an action brought before winding- 
 up 3 . 
 
 The right of set-off may have the effect of giving get-off and 
 a creditor who can apply it an advantage over other preference, 
 creditors; but so long as there is no fraud on 
 the bankruptcy laws such a transaction cannot be 
 . impeached as a fraudulent preference 4 . But where a 
 plaintiff company which is in liquidation and is suing 
 for the value of unspecific goods delivered to the 
 defendant after the commencement of the winding 
 up, in pursuance of a contract entered into before the 
 commencement of the winding up, the defendant will 
 not be allowed to set-off a debt due to him before the 
 
 10 In re Wiarton Beet Sugar Co. (1905), 10 O. L. R. 219, following 
 the. Liquidators of the Maritime Bank v. Troop (1890), 16 S. C. R. 456; 
 and not following In re Mimico, Pearson's Case (1895), 26 O. R. 289; 
 see also Grissell's Case (1866), L. R. 1 Oh. 528. Whether an agreement 
 to allow a shareholder to set-off money or goods due him from the com- 
 pany against a call made before the winding up would be intra vires, 
 qucere: In re Jones & Moore Electric Co. (1908), 18 M.. L. R. 549; 
 Calisher's Case (1868), L. R. 5 Eq. 214; 37 L. J. Ch. 208; Barnett's 
 Case (1875), L. R. 19 Eq. 449; 44 L. J. Ch. 233; Black & Co.'s Case 
 (1872). L. R. 8 Ch. 254; 42 L. J. Ch. 442; Consolidated Investments, 
 Ltd., Simon's Case (1918), 2 W. W. R. 581 
 
 1 In re Duckworth (1867), L. R. 2 Ch. 578; 36 L. J. Bank. 28; 
 Ex parte Strang (1870), L. R. 5 Oh. 492; and see In re Auriferous 
 Properties, Ltd. (1898), 1 Ch. 691; 67 L. J. Oh. 367; In re G E B 
 (1903), 2 K. B. 340; 10 Mans. 243. 
 
 2 In re Ontario Fire Insurance Co., Heighington's Case (1915), 10 
 W. W. R. 911. See In re Washington Diamond Co. (1893), 3 "Ch 95 • 
 62 \j. J. Oh. 895. 
 
 3 In re Hiram Maxim Lamp Go. (1903) , 1 Ch. 70 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 18 
 'Stephens v Boisseau (1896), 26 S. C. R. 437. 
 
324 
 
 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Time when 
 mutual re- 
 lationship 
 
 must exist. 
 
 Debts 
 
 accruing 
 
 due. 
 
 section 28 commencement of the winding up ; for so to do would 
 " be to allow the company by a transaction completed 
 after the commencement of the winding tip (which 
 transaction is void unless sanctioned by the court), 
 to pay one creditor in full in preference to the others 5 . 
 The right of set-off under The Wmding-Up Act is 
 limited to such rights as arise from the mutual rela- 
 tions of the company and its creditors or debtors as 
 existent at the commencement of the winding-up pro- 
 ceedings 6 . In the case of bankruptcy, as distinguished 
 from winding up, the date of the receiving order, and 
 not the date of the commencement of the bankruptcy, 
 is the time for ascertaining what mutual debts were 
 existing between the debtor and other persons 7 . At 
 that date there may in England be a right to set-off 
 against the bankrupt, though the sum due to the bank- 
 rupt may not be capable of determination for some 
 time 8 . 
 
 Section 28(1) does not, speak of debts due or accru- 
 ing due as does the corresponding section in The Wind- 
 ing-Up Act. Whatever may be the effect of this it is 
 clear that where a debtor becomes bankrupt, having 
 money on deposit in a bank, and is indebted to the bank 
 on a note under discount which has not matured, the 
 bank is entitled after the maturity of the note to se s t 
 off its claim under the note against the claim of the 
 . trustee to the moneys still remaining on deposit 9 . But 
 where in Quebec a bank becomes insolvent a depositor 
 with money to his credit who is liable to the bank as 
 endorser on a note not yet due has no right to com- 
 
 6 Ince Hall Rolling Mills v. Douglas Forge (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 179. 
 Note that in England there is no section exactly corresponding with 
 section 71 of the Windvng-Up Act 1906, wh'ch expressly limits the 
 right of set-off to claims due or accruing due to the company at the 
 commencement of the winding up. 
 
 * Crain v. Wade (1917), 55 S. C. R. 208; per Idington. J., at p. 210. 
 Cons'der In re H E. Thome & Son, Ltd. (1914), 2 Ch. 438; and In re 
 Asphaltio Wood Pavement Go. (1885), 30 Ch. D. 216, 224; 54 L. J. Ch. 
 460. 
 
 7 In re Dainlry ex parte Mont (1900), 1 Q. B. 546; 69 L. J. Q. B- 
 207 ; 7 Mans 107. See in the case of a bank, Maritime Bank v. Rolin- 
 son (1866), 26 N. B. E. 297. 
 
 8 In re Daintry ex parte Mant. supra. 
 'Ontario Bank v Routhier (1900), 32 O. R. 67. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 325 
 
 pensation between the value of the note and a like section as 
 amount of his deposit 10 - 
 
 As between a bankrupt mortgagor and his mort- Setoff 
 gagee any claim existing at the date of the receiving s? 
 order or the execution of the assignment 1 , which would 
 form the subject of a set-off in a common law action 
 on the covenant may be set off by the trustee of the 
 mortgagor against the mortgagee or his assignee 2 . A 
 plaintiff to whom a debt is owing by a defendant who 
 becomes bankrupt pendente lite is entitled to set-off 
 the debt due by the defendant against any costs which 
 the defendant may recover 3 . The costs of a trustee in 
 bankruptcy of a defendant stand as regards set-off 
 upon the same footing as the costs of the defendant 4 . 
 There may be cases where though in liquidation pro- 
 ceedings the right of set-off is denied, the right exists 
 to set-off in an action brought 5 . 
 
 The right of set-off under The Bankruptcy Act Knowledge 
 exists whether or not at the time the claim was incur- fmm^eriai. 07 
 red there was knowledge on the part of the person 
 claiming the set-off, of the insolvency or bankruptcy 
 of the debtor 6 . 
 
 It has been held that a deed of assignment which incorpora- 
 provides for the payment of .the debts of the debtor ^J £j£r 
 "rateably according to the law of bankruptcy ands ionsina 
 without prejudice or priority", does not import the 
 obligation of allowing a set-off under the mutual deal- 
 ings section of the Act 7 . 
 
 Section 28(2) is very similar to section 51(3) in Sec.'28(2). 
 the notes to which the cases are collected. 
 
 "Vanier v. Kent (1902), Q. R. 11 K. B. 373. 
 
 1 Moody v Canadian Bank of Commerce (1891) , 14 P. R. 258. 
 
 2 Court v. Holland (1881), 29 Gr. 19. 
 "Brigham v. Smith (1870), 17 Gr. 512. 
 * Brigham v. Smith, supra. 
 
 'Sovereign Life v. Dodd (1892). 2 Q. B. 573. 
 
 "Hawkins v. Whitten (1829), 10 B. & C. 217; TMlaudeau v. Gar- 
 land (1896), 27 O. R. 391; and see Maritime Bank v. Rolinson (1866), 
 26 N. B. R. 297, and In re Central Bank, Yorke's Case (1888), 15 O. R. 
 625; and see section 100 of The Dominion Winding-Up Act, R. S C. 
 1906, e. 144. 
 
 ' Baker v. Adam (1910), 15 Com. CrtSes 227. 239. 
 
326 
 Section 29 
 
 Avoidance 
 of certain 
 settlements. 
 
 Certain 
 
 marriage 
 
 contracts 
 
 Toid as 
 
 against 
 
 trustee. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.. 
 
 Settlement and Preferences. 
 
 29 (1) Any settlement of property hereafter 
 made, not being a settlement made before 
 and in consideration of marriage, or made 
 in favour of a purchaser or incumbrancer 
 in good faith and for valuable considera- 
 tion, or a settlement made on or for the wife 
 or children of the settlor of property which 
 has accrued to the settlor after marriage in 
 right of his wife, shall, if the settlor becomes 
 bankrupt or insolvent or makes an autho- 
 rized assignment within one year after the 
 date of the settlement, be void against the 
 trustee in the bankruptcy or of the assign- 
 ment and shall, if the settlor becomes bank- 
 rupt or insolvent or makes an assignment 
 as aforesaid at any subsequent time within 
 five years after the date of the settlement, 
 be voicbagainst such trustee, unless the par- 
 ties claiming under the settlement can prove 
 that the settlor was, at the time of making 
 the settlement, able to pay all his debts with- 
 out the aid of the property comprised in the 
 settlement, and that the interest of the 
 settlor in such property passed to the trustee 
 of such settlement on the execution thereof. 
 
 (2) Any covenant or contract hereafter made 
 by any person (hereinafter called "the 
 settlor") in consideration of his or her 
 marriage, either for the future payment of 
 money for the benefit of the settlor's wife 
 or husband or children, or for the future 
 settlement on or for the settlor's wife or 
 husband or children, of property, wherein 
 the settlor had not at the date of the mar- 
 riage any estate or interest, whether vested 
 or contingent, in possession or remainder, 
 and not being money or property in right of 
 the settlor's wife or husband, shall, if the 
 settlor is adjudged bankrupt or make's an 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 327 
 
 authorized assignment as aforesaid, and the section 29 
 covenant or contract has not been executed 
 at the date of the petition in bankruptcy or 
 said assignment, be void against such trus- 
 tee except so far as it enables the persons 
 entitled under the covenant or contract to 
 claim for dividend in the settlor's bank- 
 ruptcy or assignment proceedings under or 
 in respect of the covenant or contract, but 
 any such claim to dividend shall be post- 
 poned until all claims of the other creditors 
 for valuable consideration in money or 
 money's worth have been satisfied. 
 (3) Any payment of money hereafter made payments 
 (not being payment of premiums on a policy TOi1uubject s 
 of life insurance in favour of the husband, j£,J£?£ f f j* te 
 wife, child or children of the settlor) or any 
 transfer of property hereafter made by the 
 settlor in pursuance of such a covenant 
 or contract as aforesaid, shall be void 
 against the trustee unless the person to 
 whom the payment or transfer was made 
 prove either, — 
 
 (a) that the payment or transfer was made ■ 
 more than six months before the date of 
 the petition in bankruptcy or the date of 
 the authorized assignment; or, 
 
 (h) that at the date of the payment or 
 transfer the settlor. was able to pay all 
 his debts without the aid of the money so 
 paid or the property so transferred ; or, 
 
 (c) that the payment or transfer was made 
 in pursuance of a covenant or contract to 
 pay or transfer money or property 
 expected to come to the settlor from or 
 on the death of a particular person named 
 in the covenant or contract and was made 
 within three months after the money or 
 property came into the possession or 
 under the control of the settlor ; 
 
328 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 29 ^^ j n the event of any such payment or 
 
 transfer being declared void, the persons to 
 whom it was made shall be entitled to claim 
 for dividend under or in respect of the 
 covenant or contract in like manner as if it 
 had not been executed at the date of the said 
 petition or assignment. 
 
 de S fined ment " ( 4 ) " Settlement ' ' shall, for the purpose of this 
 section, include any conveyance or transfer 
 of property. 
 
 Cross References Act: Recovering proceeds of settlements, 33; 
 discharge when settlement made to defeat or delay creditors, 60 ; fraudu- 
 lent conveyance an act of bankruptcy, 3(6) ; protection of purchasers 
 in good faith, 33;' protected transactions, 32; adjudication of bank- 
 ruptcy, 4(5) ; relation back of 'bankruptcy, 4(10) ; making of A.A., 9; 
 computation of time, 82 ; fraudulent preference, 31 ; priority of 
 claims, 51. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Application to avoid a settlement, 120, 
 121. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: -English Acts, 1914, g. 42; 1883, s. 47; 
 1869, s. 91. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Comparison with English section. 
 
 What is meant by " settlement." 
 
 Settlements impeachable under 13 Eliz. c. 5. 
 
 Settlement made in consideration of marriage. 
 
 Purchaser. 
 
 In good faith. 
 
 Meaning of " void." 
 
 Effect of avoidance of settlement. 
 
 Settlements impeached within five years from execution. 
 
 Comparison This section differs in some respects from its Eng- 
 section. S ' s lish prototype. The Canadian section refers only to 
 settlements, contracts or payments "hereafter made" 8 . 
 The English Act contains no such limitation. Fur- 
 ther, while a settlement may be attacked in England 
 only if the settlor becomes bankrupt, it may be 
 attacked in Canada if he becomes bankrupt or insol- 
 vent 9 , or if he makes an authorized assignment. The 
 periods of two and ten years within which the settle- 
 ment may be attacked under the English Act have been 
 shortened to one and five years respectively in section 
 
 8 ^The Act came into force 1 July, 1920; see section 98. 
 9 Insolvent is defined, sect : on 2(t). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 329 
 
 29(1); and the period of two years within which a Section 29 
 payment of money or a transfer of property will be 
 avoided under the English Act, has been shortened to 
 six months in section 29(3) (a) of The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 To be within section 29(1) the transaction must be what is 
 in the nature of a settlement, that is a disposition of Nettie- 3 
 property to be held for the enjoyment of some person, ment." 
 It may take the form of a conveyance or transfer by 
 the donor which contemplates the retention of the 
 property by the donee 10 , either in its original form 
 or in such a form that it can be traced. It does not 
 extend to a transfer of property which cannot be 
 traced, as for instance, where there is a gift of 
 money to be employed in a business * or in the 
 purchase of a business, the money being so employed 
 or spent, and the business itself not being settled 1 . 
 Annual payments for premiums due on a life insur- 
 ance policy taken out before marriage, but settled after 
 marriage on the wife of the assured, are not "settle- 
 ments"; nor is a proportionate part of the moneys pay- 
 able under the policy represented by the payment of 
 these particular premiums 2 . Damages recovered by a 
 husband against a co-respondent under The English 
 Matrimonial Causes Act 1857, being entirely in the con- 
 trol of the court which may settle them on the children 
 leaving nothing to the husband, are not when settled 
 a "settlement of property" within the section which 
 may be avoided by the trustee in bankruptcy of the 
 husband 3 . Where the property in the article in ques- 
 tion has never been in the alleged settlee there is no 
 settlement, even though he may have had the benefit 
 of the transaction*. 
 
 10 In re Tankard ex parte 0. R. (1899), 2 Q. B. 57; 68 L. J. Q. B. 
 670 ; 6 Mans. 188 ; In re Vansittart ex parte Brown (1893) , 1 Q. B 181 ■ 
 62 L. J. Q. B. 277 ; 9 Mor. 280. 
 
 *In re Plummer (19"00), 2 Q. B. 790; 69 L. J. Q. B. 936; 7 Mans. 
 367; In re Player ex parte Harvey (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 682; 54 L. J. 
 Q. B. 554; 2 Mor. 265; per Rigby, L.J., In re Plummer (1900). supra, 
 and see Lister v. Hooson (1908), 1 K, B. 174; 77 L. J. K. B. 161; 15 
 Mans. 17. 
 
 2 In re Harrison and Ingram ex parte Whinney (1900), 2 Q B 
 710 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 942 ; 7 Mans 378. 
 
 3 In re Stephenson ex parte Brown (1897), 1 Q. B. 638- 66 L J 
 Q. B. 423 ; 4 Mans. 13. 
 
 *In re Branson, ex parte Moore (1914), 3 K. B. 1086- 83 L J 
 K. B. 1673 ; 21 Mans. 229. 
 
330 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 29 While a man may not by contract or otherwise 
 qualify his own interest by a condition determining or 
 controlling it in. the event of his bankruptcy to the 
 prejudice of his creditors, he may make a sale of his 
 property taking back a covenant for the discharge of 
 his debts and the payment of an annuity defeasible on 
 bankruptcy; such a sale is not a settlement nor will 
 it be set aside under 13 Eliz. c. 5, if made bona fide, for 
 good consideration and not for the purpose of hinder- 
 ing or defrauding creditors 6 . 
 Settlements Settlements which cannot be impeached within the 
 u™der C i| ble time limited in this section can often be impeached 
 Eiiz. c. 5. under 13 Eliz. c. 5. It is not proposed here to discuss 
 the numerous cases on that Statute. They are fully 
 treated in May on Fraudulent and Voluntary Disposi- 
 tions of Property. The principle of the Statute is 
 that there must be bad faith, that is- an intention on 
 the part, not of the settlor, but of the vendor in that 
 character, to cheat or delay his creditors in their 
 demands 6 . The illegal intent is a question of fact for 
 the jury or a judge sitting as a jury'. The Statute of 
 Elizabeth was meant, for example, to prevent a man 
 making a voluntary settlement of all his property 
 immediately before going into a hazardous business, 
 the object being "If I succeed in business I make a 
 fortune for myself. If I fail I leave my creditors 
 unpaid" 8 . Under that Statute purchasers for value 
 without notice are protected, and this phrase includes 
 persons who have without notice of the fraudulent char- 
 acter of the settlement purchased an interest whether 
 legal or equitable, which is derived under it 9 . 
 
 y's Trustee, Denny v. Warr (1919) , 1 K. B. 583 ; 88 L. J. 
 K. B. 679 ; (1918-19), B. & C. R. 139, following In re and ex parte Eyre 
 (1881), 44 L. T. 922; and see In re Tetley ex parte Jeffery (1896), 66 
 L. J. Q. B. Ill ; 3 Mans. 226, 321. 
 
 "Ex parte Eyre, supra. 
 
 'Glegg v. Bromley (1912), 3 K. B. 474, 492; 81 L. J. K, B. 1081; 
 Denny v. Denny & Warr (1919), supra, at 591. 
 
 8 Ex parte Russell in re Butterworth (1882), 19 Ch. D. 588; 51 
 L. J. Ch. 521; Maekay v. Douglas (1872), L. R. 14 Eq. 106; 41 L. J. 
 Ch. 529; Lai Hop v. Jackson (1895), 4 B. C. R. 168. See as to 
 onus of proof in the case of transfers between relatives, Imperial Bank v. 
 McLellan (1919), 12 S. L. R. 415. 
 
 "Halifax Joint Stock Banking Co. v. Gledhill (1891), 1 Ch. 31; 
 60 L. J. Ch. 181 ; 63 L. T. 623. 
 
THE BANKRUPTvY ACT. 331 
 
 The section does not purport to avoid settlements section 29 
 made before and in consideration of marriage 10 . But settlements 
 where a marriage is entered into solely for the pur- ™£erat£>n°of 
 pose of making a settlement valid, which otherwise marriage. 
 would be void, the settlement will be set aside at the 
 instance of the settlor's trustee in bankruptcy 1 . If, 
 however, the object of the marriage is not solely for 
 the purpose of preserving the property comprised in 
 the settlement, but for the ordinary reasons which 
 lead men and women to marry, the settlement will not 
 be voidi 2 , and such a settlement may contain a coven- 
 ant to transfer to the trustee of the settlement all 
 after-acquired property except business assets 3 . 
 
 A settlement by a widower on remarriage is vol- 
 untary as regards a daughter by a previous marriage 
 interested therein*, and a deed supplemental to an 
 ante-nuptial settlement may be voluntary as regards 
 the wife 5 . 
 
 Section 29(1) likewise protects settlements made in p urc h aS er. 
 favour of a purchaser or incumbrancer in good faith 
 and for valuable consideration. The term " pur- 
 chaser ' ' as so used is not limited to a purchaser in the 
 mercantile sense, viz. : a person who has bought some- 
 thing by contract and sale; but it extends to a case 
 where a father and son join in settling certain of the 
 property of each of them on the son 's children 6 . 
 
 10 A life interest in an antenuptial settlement of a man's own property 
 may not be made defeasible on bankruptcy, for that would be against the 
 policy of the bankruptcy laws. See Burroughs-Fowler (1916), 2 Ch. 
 251 ; (1916) , H. B. R. 108. The forfeiture in such case will not operate 
 as between the debtor and his trustee, but it will operate as between 
 the debtor and third parties entitled to benefit on . the forfeiture, S. C. 
 See for an example of a properly drawn settlement limiting husband's 
 property for life and other property till bankruptcy : In re Winwood's 
 Settlement, Fisher v. Trustee (1916), H. B. R. 158. 
 
 1 In re and ex parte Pennington (1888), 5 Mor. 216, 268; Bulmer 
 v. Hunter (1869), L. R. 8 Eq. 46; 38 L. J. Ch. 543; ColomUne v. Pen- 
 hall (1853) , 1 Sm. & Giff. 228. 
 
 ' In re and ex parte Pennington, supra; Fallis v, Wilson, 15 0. L 
 R. 55. 
 
 'In re Beis ex parte dough (1904), 2 K. B. 769; 73 L. J. K. B. 
 929; 11 Mans. 229. 
 
 ' Carruthers T. Peake (1911) , 55 S. J. 291. 
 
 ■ In re Maedonald (1919), 88 L. .T. K. B. 1226. 
 
 "Hance v. Harding (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 732, 738; 57 L. J, Q. B. 
 403 ; In re Tetley ex parte Jeffrey (1896) , 66 L. J. Q. B. Ill ; 3 Mans. 
 226. 321 ; Mackintosh v. Pogose (1895) , 1 Oh. 505 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 275 ; 
 2 Mans. 27. 
 
332 
 
 Till! BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 29 
 
 In good 
 faith. 
 
 Meaning of 
 " void." 
 
 Effect of 
 avoidance of 
 settlement. 
 
 In order to constitute "good faith" within this 
 section it is sufficient if there be good faith on the part 
 pf the purchaser ; it is not necessary that both parties 
 to the transaction should act in good faith 7 . The 
 words " good faith" must be taken to mean without 
 notice that any fraud or fraudulent preference is 
 intended 8 . 
 
 Void in this section means voidable 9 as against 
 the donee' under the settlement, but not as against a 
 purchaser in good faith for fair and reasonable con- 
 sideration from such donee 10 , who has no notice of the 
 insolvency of the debtor 1 . Such a purchaser will be 
 protected not only when he purchases before the com- 
 mencement of the title of the trustee 2 , but also when 
 having no notice of an act of bankruptcy he purchases 
 after the time to which it relates back 3 . On the same 
 principle trustees of a settlement originally valid 4 , 
 but which becomes void on the bankruptcy of the 
 settlor are entitled as against the trustee in bankruptcy 
 to a lien on the trust property for expenses properly 
 incurred in the performance of their duty as trustees 5 . 
 
 Subject to the provisions of section 33, the effect 
 of an order declaring a settlement to be void as against 
 the trustee in bankruptcy or authorized assignment 
 proceedings is not to vest the property comprised in 
 
 7 Mackintosh V Pogose, supra; In re Tetley ex parte Jeffrey, supra. 
 
 'Butcher v. Stead (1875), L. R. 7 H. L. 839; 44 L. J. Bank, 126; 
 as cited in Mackintosh v. Pogose, supra. 
 
 "In re Brail ex parte Norton (1893), 2 Q. B. 381; 62 L. J. Q. B. 
 457 ; 10 Mor. 166. 
 
 10 See section 33 and Re Vansittart ex parte Brown (1893), 2 Q. B. 
 377 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 279 : 10 Mor. 44 ; In re Naylor ex parte Stephenson 
 (1893), 62 L. J. Q. B. 460; 10 Mor. 173. 
 
 1 In re Brail ex parte Norton, supra; In re Shrager (1913), 108 
 L. T. 346. 
 
 'In re Carter & Eenderdine's Contract (1897), 1 Ch. 776; 66 L. J. 
 Ch. 408; 4 Mans. 34. 
 
 3 In re Hart ex parte Green (1912) , 3 K. B. 6 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 1213 ; 
 19, Mans. 334. and see In re Shrager (1913), 108 L. T. 346; see Wilkes v. 
 Bodington (1707), 2 Vera. 599, quoted by Oozens-Hardy, MR., in In re 
 Hart ex parte Green at p. 11. "Wilkes v. Bodington was decided when there 
 was no section similar to section 32, ^hich protects persons dealing _ in 
 good faith with the bankrupt during the period covered by the relation 
 back of the title of trustee. 
 
 4 See where the trustee must have known that the settlement was 
 invalid: Smith v. Dresser (1866), L. R. 1 Eq. 651; 35 L. J. Ch. 385. 
 
 In re Holden ex parte 0. R. (1887), 20 Q, B. D. 43; 57 L. J. Q- B. 
 47. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 333 
 
 the settlement in the trustee as against persons who section 89 
 claim to be incumbrancers or mortgagees outside the 
 bankruptcy ; but it would seem that the effect of such 
 an order is to accelerate subsequent incumbrancers 
 generally 6 , that is to say, a settlement which is void as 
 against the trustee is void altogether 7 , to the extent 
 necessary for satisfying the debts of the bankrupt and 
 the costs of the bankruptcy, 8 and the trustees of the 
 settlement will be ordered to hand over the settled 
 property to the trustee in bankruptcy without pre- 
 judice to an application by them to have the surplus 
 of the settled property handed back to them". 
 
 Where a person becomes bankrupt or insolvent or Settlements 
 makes an authorized assignment within five years from ™thinfive 
 the date of the settlement, he or those claiming under years from 
 
 ' execution 
 
 the settlement must prove, in order to uphold- the 
 settlement:— 
 
 (a) That the settlor was, at the time of making the 
 settlement, able to pay all his debts without the aid 
 of the property comprised in the settlement. This clause 
 has been construed to mean "without the aid of the 
 property which by the settlement passes to others", 
 it having been held that the life interest which the 
 settlor reserved to himself may be taken into account 
 in estimating his solvency 10 . In determining whether 
 the settlor was able to pay all his debts at the time of 
 the settlement the value of the implements of his trade 
 and the good will of his business if taken into account 
 at all may only be given such value as would be realized 
 at a forced sale 1 . 
 
 (b) That the interest of the. settlor in such property 
 passed to the trustee of such settlement on the exe- 
 cution thereof. "What the, law intends to prevent by 
 this requirement is a settlement to operate in futuro, 
 
 6 Sanguinette v. Stuckleifs Banking Co. (1895), 1 Ch 176- 64 
 L. J. Ch. 181 ; 1 Mans. 477. 
 
 7 In re Farnham (1895), 2 Ch. 799; 64 L. J. Ch. 717; 3 Mans. 109. 
 'In re Sims ex parte Sheffield (1896), 3 Mans. 340. 
 
 9 In re Sims ex parte Sheffield (1896), 3 Mans. 340. 
 
 10 In re Lowndes ex parte Trustee (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 677; 56 L J 
 Q. B. 425 : 4 Mor. 139. 
 
 1 Ex parte Russell in re Btltterworth (1882), 19 Ch. D. 588- 51 
 L. J. Ch. 521. 
 
334 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 30 a covenant for instance to settle specific property, 
 ~~ which the trustees could have enforced against the 
 trustee in the case of the settlor's bankruptcy; and 
 not to a case where, no matter how solvent the settlor 
 was, some of the settled property passed directly to 
 certain of the beneficiaries without the intervention of 
 the trustees appointed to preserve the interest of the 
 remaining beneficiaries 2 . 
 
 A document in the form of an actual assignment of 
 property not yet in possession may be read as a cove- 
 nant or contract to assign within section 29 (2) 3 . 
 
 Where the settlor has some estate or interest in 
 the property included in the covenant, that estate or 
 interest protects from the future trustee in bankruptcy 
 only the property to which it extends (at least where 
 the interest clearly extends only to a severable por- 
 tion of the property) 4 . 
 
 The settlor has an interest in property which will 
 take it out of the net spread by section 29(2), pro- 
 vided the interest ultimately materialises by any title, 
 even though that title be other than that which the 
 settlor had at the date of the marriage 5 . 
 
 The difference in language between section 29(2) 
 and section 91 of the English Act of 1869 (32 & 33 Vic. 
 c. 71), probably makes the case of in re Tonnies, ex 
 parte Bishop no longer an authority for the proposi- 
 tion that a covenant for the payment of a sum of 
 money not specifically earmarked is outside section 
 29(2). 
 
 Avoidance 
 of general 
 assignment 
 of book 
 debts. 
 
 30. (1) Where a person engaged in any trade or 
 business makes an assignment of his existing 
 or future book debts or any class or part 
 
 * In re Lowndes ex parte Trustee, supra. 
 
 'In re Bulteel's Settlements, Bulteel v. Manley (1917), 1 Ch. 251; 
 86 L. J. Ch. 294; (1917), H. B. R. 105. 
 
 1 In re Bulteel's Trusts, Bulteel v. Manley, supra. As to what 
 is estate or interest, see In re Andrews' Trusts (1878), 7 Ch. D. 635. 
 
 In re Bulteel's Settlements, Bulteel v. Manley, supra, distinguishing 
 Sweetapple v. Ilorlock. 11 Ch. D. 745 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 660 ; Lovett v. Lovett 
 (1898), 1 Ch. 82 ; 67 L. J.. Ch. 20. 
 
 6 (1873). L. R. 8 Ch. 718; 42 L. J. Bank. 107. The case is, how- 
 ever, cited in Williams, 12th ed., p. 292. , 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 33J 
 
 thereof, and is subsequently adjudicated section 30 
 bankrupt or makes an authorized assign- 
 ment, the assignment of book debts shall be 
 void against the trustee in the bankruptcy or 
 under the authorized assignment, as regards 
 any book debts which have not been paid at 
 the date of the presentation of the petition 
 in bankruptcy or of the making of the 
 authorized assignment, unless there has been 
 compliance with the provisions of any stat- 
 ute which now is or hereafter may be in 
 force in the province wherein such person 
 resides or' is engaged in said trade or busi- 
 ness as to registration, notice and publica- 
 tion of such assignments. Provided that 
 nothing in this section shall have effect so as 
 to render void any assignment of book debts, 
 due at the date of the assignment from speci- 
 fied debtors, or of debts growing due under 
 specified contracts, or any assignment of 
 book debts included in a transfer of a busi- 
 ness made bona fide and for value, or in any 
 authorized assignment. 
 (2) For the purposes of this section "assign- -Assign- 
 ment" includes assignment by way of^^'a 
 security and other charges on book debts. 
 
 Cross References Act: Adjudication of bankruptcy, 4(5) ; 
 relation back of bankruptcy, 4(10) ; compare, 29; making of A. A., 9; 
 compliance with provincial Acts, of., 3(A). 
 
 Cross References Rules: Presentation of petition, 76. 
 
 Analogous Legislation : English Act, 1914, s. 43 ; 1913, s. 14 ; 
 cf. The Bank Act (Canada), 1913, c. 9, s. 88(13) to (16). 
 
 Section 30(1) is in the form in which it was enacted 
 by section 25 of The Bankruptcy Act Amendment 
 Act, 1921 7 . 
 
 ' The previous section read : — 
 
 30(1) Where a person engaged in any trade or business makes an 
 assignment to any other person of his existing or future book debts, or 
 any class or part thereof, and is subsequently adjudicated bankrupt or 
 makes an authorized assignment, the assignment of book debts shall be 
 void against the trustee in the bankruptcy, or under the authorized 
 assignment, as regards any book debts which have not been paid at the 
 
336 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 30 The deletion of the .words "to any other person" 
 from the original section was no doubt intended to 
 avoid the contention that section 30 was not intended 
 to apply to banks, it being possible the word "person" 
 as defined in section 2{aa) did not include banks. 
 
 There is some professional difference of opinion 
 on the meaning to be given to section 30(1). There are 
 those who are of the opinion that the section avoids 
 all general assignments of book debts, except in pro- 
 vinces where there is statutory provision for the reg- 
 istration notice and publication of such assignments, 
 and where the provincial law has been" complied with. 
 On the other hand there are those who maintain that 
 the section does not avoid general assignments of book 
 ' debts where there is no local law requiring registration 
 notice and publication. 
 
 It is considered that the second is the sounder opin- 
 ion. If this is the eorrect view, it is another illustra- 
 tion of the fact that Parliament has refrained as much 
 a,s possible from altering provincial law, even though 
 under the ancillary doctrine Parliament would be 
 competent so to legislate. Other instances will be found 
 in which The Bankruptcy Act is superimposed on pro- 
 vincial law. Such a system permits of provincial 
 freedom in matters which have hitherto been within 
 the provincial sphere. 
 
 Book debts are choses in action. In the past 
 choses in action have either been expressly excepted 
 from the Provincial Bills of Sale Acts, or they have 
 been impliedly excluded by the use of such phrases as 
 "goods and chattels", which do not include choses in 
 action. The same rule formerly prevailed in Eng- 
 land; but the English Bills of Sale Act has been 
 amended so as to bring book debts within the Act. 
 
 date of the petition in bankruptcy or of the authorized assignment, 
 unless there has been compliance with the provisions of any Statute 
 which now is or at any time hereafter may be in force in the province 
 wherein such person resides or is engaged in said trade or business as to 
 registration, notice and publication of such assignments. Provided that 
 nothing in this section shall have effect so as to render void any assign- 
 ment of boob debts, due at the date of the assignment from specified 
 debtors, or of debts growing due under specified contracts, or any assign- 
 ment of book debts included in a transfer of a business made bona fide 
 and for value, or in any authorized assignment. 
 
TIIE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 337 
 
 This legislation has been followed in British Columbia Section 30 
 where there is now an Assignment of Book Accounts 
 Act, and in Saskatchewan 8 . 
 
 Section 30(1) has no reference to Provincial Acts 
 which provide that the legal right to a debt shall pass 
 where there is an absolute assignment in writing (not 
 purporting to be by way of charge only) of a debt or 
 other legal chose in action with express notice in writ- 
 ing to the debtor 9 . 
 
 In provinces therefore in which there is no pro- 
 vincial statute similar to the British Columbia Assign- 
 ment of Book Accounts Act, it is submitted that an 
 equitable or "legal" assignment of book debts will be 
 good as against the trustee in bankruptcy, even when 
 it is made after the date of the presentation of the 
 petition, provided it falls within the protection of sec- 
 tion 32, and provided it is not a fraudulent preference, 
 or given under circumstances which raise an estoppel 10 . 
 
 s See B. C. 1916, c. 5, amended 1917, c. 6 ; 1918, o. 8 ; 1920, c. 7 ; 
 Saskatchewan Chattel Mortgage Act, R. S. S. c. 200, s. 13. As for pro- 
 vincial Bills of Sales Acts which expressly except from their operation 
 choses in action, see N. S. 1918, c. 11, s. 2(6) ; C. S. N. B. 1903, c. 142, 
 s. 28: R. S. B. C. 1911, c. 20, s. 3. For interpretation of the phrase 
 " goods and chattels," see per Armour, C.J., in Thibaudeau v. Paul 
 (1894), 26 O. R. 385, at 389; per Teetzel, J., in National Trust v. 
 Trusts and Ghiarantee (1912), 26 O. L. R. 279, and see Kitching v. Hicks 
 (1884), 6 O. R. 739; Tailby v. O. R. (1888), 13 A. C. 523. Compare 
 R. S. O. 1914, c. 135, ss. 5, 8 ; R S. M. 1913, c. 17, ss. 3, 5 ; R. S. S. 
 1909, c. 144, s. 7. The interpretation given to the phrase " goods 
 and chattels " in such Acts should not be • confused with that given 
 to the phrase when used in wills : In re McQarry (1909) , 18 O. L. R 
 525. Apart from Statute there is no duty on a bank which has 
 received a general assignment of book debts to notify other credi- 
 tors of the debtor to this effect : Bank of British North America v. 
 Wood (1910), 14 W. L. R. 34. See as to Quebec Civil Code, 
 Articles 1570 to 1578, and Art. 2127. The law in Quebec previous to 
 coming into force of The Bankruptcy Act was similar to that in the 
 French commercial code under which the assignee in assignment pro- 
 ceedings occupied a higher position than does the trustee in bankruptcy. 
 In Quebec he was in the position of a third party who could take advan- 
 tage of Article 1571 as against the purchaser of a debt or r'ght of act : on 
 who had not taken the necessary steps to complete his title as a?a : nst 
 third parties: Dominion Bank v. Ayling, Ryan & Bart (1917), 26 Que. 
 K, B. 75. Contrast Thibaudeau v. Paul (1895). 26 O. R. 385. 
 
 'See for an example of such an Act,- R. S. O. 1914, c. 109, s. 49. 
 This and similar provincial enactments were originally taken from the 
 English Judicature Act 1873, 36 & 37 Vic. c. 66 v s. 25(6). They do 
 not forbid or destroy equitable assignments or impair their efficacy : 
 Brandts v. Dunlop Rubber Co. (1905), S. C. 454, 461 ; 74 J. A. B. S9&. 
 
 "There is no reputed ownership clause in the Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 B.O.— 22 
 
338 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 30 
 
 Law with 
 respect to 
 assignments 
 of future 
 Glioses in 
 action pre- 
 vious to 
 passing of 
 see. 30(1). 
 
 Watson, L.J., in Tailby v. 0. JR. 11 ,. speaking of the 
 law in England when no section analogous to section 30 
 of The Bankruptcy Act had been passed, said: "The 
 rule of equity which applies to the assignment of future 
 choses in action is, as I understand it, a very simple 
 one. Choses in action do not come within the scope of 
 The Bills of Sale Acts, and though not yet existing 
 may nevertheless be the subject of present assignment. 
 As soon as they come into existence, assignees who 
 have given valuable consideration will, if the new 
 chose in action is in the disposal of their assignor, 
 take precisely the same right and interest as if it had 
 actually belonged to him, or had been within his disposi- 
 tion and control at the time when the assignment was 
 made. There is but one condition which must be ful- 
 filled in order, to make the assignee's right attach to a 
 future chose in action, that is that on its coming into 
 existence it shall answer the description in the assign- 
 ment, or, in other words, that it shall be capable of 
 being identified as the thing, or as one of the very 
 things assigned. When there is no uncertainty the 
 beneficial interest will immediately vest in the assignee 
 . . . In the case of book debts as in the case, of 
 choses in action generally, intimation of the assignee's 
 right must be made to the debtor or obligee in order 
 to make it complete. That is the only possession which 
 he can attain, so long as the debt is unpaid, and is 
 sufficient to take it out of the order and disposition 
 of the assignor" 12 . 
 
 Such cases therefore as Rutter v. Everett (1895), 2 Oh. 872; 64 L. J. 
 Ch. 845 ; 2 Mans. 371 ; In re Neal (1914), 2 K. B. 910; 83 L. J. K. B. 
 111$; 21 Mans. 164, are inapplicable. 
 
 11 (1888), 13 A. C. 523, 533; 58 L. J. Q. B. 75. 
 
 12 See where the assignment was insufficiently denned : Jones v. 
 Humphreys (1902), 1 K. B. 10; 71 L. J. K. B. 23. An assignment of 
 book debts will carry the books, so that the person entitled to the book 
 debts under the deed is entitled to the books of account : In re White d 
 Co. ex parte O. R. (1884), 1 Mor. 77. A bill entered in the books of 
 the debtor as a receivable bill is a book debt: Dawson v. Isle (1906), 1 
 Ch. 633 ; 75 L. J. Oh. 338. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 339 
 
 31. (1) Every conveyance or transfer of pro- section 31 
 perty or charge thereon made, every pay- Avoidance 
 ment made, every obligation incurred, and^^^ 1106 
 every judicial proceeding taken or suffered cases - 
 by any insolvent, person in favour of any 
 creditor or of any person in trust for any 
 creditor with a view of giving such creditor 
 a preference over the other creditors shall, 
 if the person making, incurring, taking, 
 praying or suffering the same is adjudged 
 bankrupt on a bankruptcy petition pre- 
 sented within three months after the date 
 
 - of making, incurring, taking, paying or 
 suffering the same, or if he makes an autho- 
 rized assignment, within three months after 
 the date of the making, incurring, taking, 
 paying or suffering the same, be deemed 
 fraudulent and void as against the trustee 
 in the bankruptcy or under the authorized 
 assignment. 
 
 (2) If any such conveyance, transfer, pay- when vie*- 
 ment, obligation or judicial proceeding has primed 
 the effect of giving any creditor a prefer- P"ma fade. 
 ence over other creditors, or over any one 
 
 or more of them, it shall be presumed prima 
 facie to have been made, incurred, taken, 
 paid or suffered with such view as aforesaid 
 whether or not it was made voluntarily or 
 under pressure and evidence of pressure 
 shall not be receivable or avail to support 
 such transaction. 
 
 (3) For the purpose of this section, the ex- Creditor 
 pression "creditor" shall include a surety or defined - 
 guarantor for the debt due to such credi- 
 tor. 
 
 Cross References Act: Insolvent defined, 2(4) ; fraudulent pre- 
 ference an act of bankruptcy, 3(c) ; certain purchasers in good faith 
 protected, 33; fraudulent preference after arrest, '55 (2). 
 
 Analogous Legislation. Canadian Acts, 1875, s. 133 ; 1869, s. 
 89; 1864, s. 8(4). 
 
 English Acts, 1914, s. 44 ; 1883, s. 48 ; 1869, s. 92. 
 Dominion Winding-up Act (1906), c. 144, s. 98. 
 
310 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 31 Provincial Assignments Acts v R. S'. O. 1914, e. 134, s. 5(2) (3) 
 
 (4) (5) ; R. S. M. 1913, c. 12, s. 38 ; Alberta, 1907, c. 6, s. 38; R. S. N. 
 
 B. e. 141 ; s. 2 (2) (3) (4) (5) ; P. E. I. 1898, c. 4, s. 2. 
 Civil Code of Quebec, Art. 2023. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 What is a fraudulent preference is determined by the words of the 
 
 section. 
 Transactions can only be impeached within three months. 
 Preference after date of petition. 
 Set off no preference. 
 Doctrine of fraudulent preference not invoked for benefit of single 
 
 creditor or class. 
 Whether trustee must prove that creditor had knowledge of the 
 
 intent and also of the insolvency of the debtor. 
 Law under Assignments Acts. — 
 Two points in which Bankruptcy Act differs from Assignments_Acts. 
 
 First point : The innocence of the preferred creditor will not 
 validate the preference. 
 
 Second point : Preference exists when made " with a view of 
 giving a preference." 
 
 Meaning of " with a view of giving a preference." 
 Pressure. 
 
 Fraudulent preference can only be given by an insolvent. 
 Effect of section 31(2). 
 Cases where the view is not a view to give a preference. 
 
 (a) A sense of binding obligation. 
 
 (6) Charge given in pursuance of previous agreement. 
 
 (c) Payments in the ordinary course of business. 
 
 (d) Payment to a secured creditor. , 
 
 (e) Payment of regular allowance. 
 (/J Revivor of debt. 
 
 Other circumstances which put the transaction outside fraudulent 
 
 preference. 
 
 (a) Transaction must be with reference to debtor's own pro- 
 perty. 
 
 (6) Money clothed with trust. 
 Transactions which may be fraudulent preferences. 
 
 (a) Payments' mad«. 
 
 (6) Judicial proceedings taken or suffered. 
 What is not a fraudulent preference may be a fraudulent transfer 
 
 or a common law fraud or fall within 13 Eliz. c. 5. 
 Evidence of other acts. 
 Meaning of " creditor." 
 
 This is the section substituted; by 10 Geo. V. c. 34, 
 s. 8, for section 31 of The Bankruptcy Act 13 . It differs 
 
 Avoidance "The previous section read: "31(1). Every conveyance or trans- 
 
 of preference ^ er °^ property or charge thereon made, every payment made, every 
 
 in certain obligation incurred, and every judicial proceeding taken or suffered by 
 
 cases. any insolvent person in favour of any creditor or of any person in trust 
 
 for any creditor with a view of giving such creditor a preference* over 
 
 the other creditors or which has the effect of giving such cred : tor a 
 
 preference over the other creditors shall, if the person making, incurring, 
 
 taking, paying or suffering the same is adjudged bankrupt on a bankruptcy 
 
 petition presented within three months after the date of making, incur- 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 3^1 
 
 in an important respect from, the corresponding Eng- section 31 
 lish section, in that sub-section 31(2) purports to do - 
 away with the doctrine of pressure 14 . The English 
 sub-section protecting a person who makes title in 
 good faith and for valuable consideration throug-h or 
 under a creditor of a bankrupt finds its counterpart 
 in section 33. 
 
 Apart from the Bankruptcy Act, a conveyance to a What is a 
 
 -,., .,, ...... „ . . fraudulent 
 
 creditor with a view to giving him a preference is unrm- preference is 
 peachable both at common law and under the Statute by'thewwds 
 of Elizabeth. 15 . of the 
 
 section. 
 
 The transaction can only be impeached in the Transactions 
 period mentioned in the section 1 . The day on which f^peached 6 
 the petition is presented is excluded in calculating the within three 
 
 months. 
 
 ring, taking, paying or suffering the same, or if he .makes an authorized 
 assignment, within three months after the date of the making, incurring, 
 taking, paying or suffering the same, if made, incurred, taken, paid or 
 suffered with such view as aforesaid, he deemed fraudulent and void as 
 against the trustee in the bankruptcy or under the authorized assignment, 
 or if it has such' effect as aforesaid be presumed prima facie to have been 
 made with a view of giving such creditor a preference over the other 
 creditors, whether it was made voluntarily or under pressure, and if held 
 to have been made with such view, be deemed fraudulent and void as 
 aforesaid. 
 
 (2) For the purposes of this section, the expression " creditor " shall " Creditor " 
 include a surety or guarantor for the debt due to such creditor." defined. 
 
 " Under the corresponding section of The Dominion Insolvency Act 
 of 1875 the doctrine of pressure was excluded : Davidson v. Ross (1876), 
 24 Gr. 22, overruling Campbell v. Barrie, 31 U. C. Q. B. 279 ; Archibald 
 v. Haldan (1871), 31 U. C. Q. B. 295 ; MacFarlane v. McDonald, 21 Gr. 
 319; Keays v. Brown, 22 Gr. 10. 
 
 15 Ex parte Games re Bamfard (1879), 12 Ch. D. 314 ; 40 L. T. 
 1 789; 27 W. R. 744 ; Glegg v. Bromley (1912), 3 K. B. 474, 485, 492 ; 81 
 L. J. K. B. 1081; 106 L. T. 625; Middleton v. Pollock (1876), 2 Ch. 
 D. 104, 108, 109; Alton v Harrison (1869), L. R. 4 Ch. 622; 28 L. J. 
 Ch. 669. The earlier statutes relating to bankruptcy contained no pro- 
 vision invalidating payments made prior to the act of bankruptcy ; but 
 the courts, from the time of Lord Mansfield, held that if a trader in con- 
 templation of bankruptcy with a view to evade the bankruptcy law. 
 preferred a particular creditor to the detriment of the rest, such a pre- 
 ference was a fraud upon the law. Lord EUenborough in Crosby v. 
 Crouch (1809), 2 Camp. 166, 168; 11 East, 256, called this an " excres- 
 cense on the bankruptcy laws." See per Oockburn, C.J., in Bills. \. Smith 
 (1865), 34 L. J. Q. B. 68, 70; 12 L. T. 22 ; 6 B. & S. 314. 
 
 1 Ex parte Games in re Bamford, supra; In re and ex parte Harvey 
 (1890), 7 Mor. 138; In re Liverpool & London Guarantee Co. (1880) 
 30 W. K. 378 ; 46 L. T. 54 ; 30 W. R. 378 per Phillimore, J., in In re 
 Ramsay ex parte Deacon (1913), 2 K. B. 80; 82 L. J. K. B. 526; 108 
 L. T. 495 ; 20 Mans. 15. Unless under our Act it may be avoided as an 
 act of bankruptcy. See notes to section 3. 
 
342 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 31 three months 2 . For the purpose of deciding what 
 ' transactions or parts of transactions fall -within this 
 period, the days are to be treated as whole days 3 . 
 
 The transaction may be impeached on summary 
 
 application under Eule 120. 
 
 Preference Where the fraudulent preference takes plaee 
 
 petition.** ° between the date of the presentation of the petition 
 
 and the making of the receiving order, the section does 
 
 not apply; but such a transaction is apart from Statute 
 
 a fraud against the policy of the bankruptcy laws and 
 
 cannot stand 4 - 
 
 Set-offno A set-off which falls within section 28(1) of the 
 
 preference. ^ Q ^ - g nQ ^ a fraudulent preference even though the 
 
 effect is to prefer 5 . 
 Doctrine of ' The doctrine of fraudulent preference cannot be 
 preference enforced for the benefit of a single creditor or class of 
 ?or.bemefit d of creditors 6 , and this applies in the winding up of com- 
 singiecredi- panies 7 . Therefore a creditor whose sole claim is based 
 
 tOlT OP f'lllSS 
 
 on the fraudulent provisions section of the Act may 
 neither take proceedings in his own name, nor may he 
 take them in the name of the trustee 8 , 
 whether In deciding whether a transaction can be impeached 
 
 prove e that as a fraudulent preference under section 31 of The 
 toowiedge d Bankruptcy Act, two very important matters have 
 df the intent first to be determined, namely whether the law under 
 
 and also of ,-, , ,. . „ ., , 
 
 the insoiv- that section requires proof that : — 
 debtor! the ( a ) the preferred creditor had knowledge of the 
 
 fraudulent intent of the debtor, and 
 
 (b) that the preferred creditor had knowledge of' 
 the insolvency of the debtor. 
 
 The law as it was developed in Ontario under suc- 
 
 2 Ex parte 0. R. in re Dawes (1897), 4 Mans. 117. 
 
 "In re and ex parte Harvey (1890), 7 Mor. 138. 
 
 ' In re Badham eau parte Palmer (1893) , 69 L. T. 356 ; 10 Mor. 252 ; 
 see Ex parte Waller in re Dunkley (1905), 2 K. B. 683; 74 L. J. K. B. 
 963 ; 12 Mans. 384. 
 
 In re Washington Diamond Mining Co. (1893), 3 Ch. 95; 62 L. J. 
 Ch. 895; 69 L. T. 27. Where a debtor has leased his property to a 
 creditor at a fair rent the setting off of the rent due against the debt due 
 is not a fraudulent preference: Smith v. Lawrence (1891), 27 C. L. J. 
 116. 
 
 "Ea> parte Cooper in re Zucco (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 510; 44 L. J. 
 Bank. 121. 
 
 7 WUlmott v. London Celluloid Co. (1887), 34 Ch. D. 147; 56 L. J. 
 Oh. 89 ; 55 L. T. 696. 8 Ex parte Cooper in re Zucco, supra. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 343 
 
 cessive Assignments and Preferences Acts, which were section 3X 
 enacted in similar terms in other Provincial jurisdic- Law under 
 tiens, required proof of both the above mentioned facts ; Asswwnents 
 unless on proof of the first the conclusion was that 
 the creditor must have had knowledge of the second. 
 
 In the leading case of Johnson v. Hope", the Court 
 of Appeal for Ontario decided that it must be shown 
 that the grantee had knowledge or notice of the embar- 
 rassed condition of the debtor before a transaction 
 could be avoided as a fraudulent preference under 
 the Ontario Act. This; decision was not accepted with- 
 out evidence of strong judicial opinion to the con- 
 trary 10 , but has since been followed 1 . 
 
 Johnson v. Hope 2 also decided that where the credi- 
 tor deals bona fide with the debtor, that is to say where 
 there is no "concurrence of intent" the transaction 
 cannot be impeached as a fraudulent preference ; and 
 this is now the law, although it was not until 1905 that 
 there was a decision to this effect in the Supreme 
 Court of Canada 3 . 
 
 There are two outstanding* points of difference 
 between the provisions of The Bankruptcy Act with 
 
 " (1889) 17 O. A. R. 10, followed in Ashley v. Brown (1889), 17 
 O. A. R. 500 ; and see under the Act of 1869 Rickaby v. Bell (1878) , 2 
 S. C. R. 560. 
 
 10 See per Hagarty, O.J.O., in Gibbons v. McDonald (1890), 18 O. 
 A. R. 159, 161 ; per Osier, J,A.. S.C., at 165 ; and per Street, J., in the 
 same ease in (1890), 19 O. R. 290, 293; see also Lamb v. Young (1890), 
 19 O. R. 290, 293, and see also S. C. 105, and per Killam, C.J., in 
 Schwartz v. Winkler (1901), 13 M. L. R. 493, 505. 
 
 1 Baldocchi v. Spada (1907), 38 S. C. R. 577; 8 O. W. R. 705 ; 7 
 O. W. R. 325; Dana v. McLean (1901), 2 O. L. R. 466; Desmarteau v. 
 Dmgman (1908), 11 O. W. R. Ill; Benallach v. Bank of B N A 
 (1905), 36 S. C. R. 120. 
 2 Supra. 
 
 3 Benallack v. The\Bank of British North America (1905), 36 S O 
 R. 120, 128 ; Baldocchi v. Spada. (1907) . 38 S. C. R. 577, 578 ; 8 O. W. 
 R. 705 ; 7 O. W. R. 325 ; and see per Ritchie, O.J., in Gibbons v Mc- 
 Donald (1892), 20 S. C. R. 587, 589; per Beck, J., in Tudhope v. 
 Northern Bank (1909), 10 W. L. R. 122; Smith v. Sugarman (1909), 
 12 W. L. R. 585, 586 ; retd. 13 W. L. R. 671 ; restored 47 S. C. R. 392 ; 
 and per Harvey, J., in Ross Bros., Ltd. v. Pearson (1905), 1 W. L. r! 
 338, 342, 575; Desmarteau v. Dingman (1908), 11 O. W. R. Ill, 113; 
 Langley v. Palter (1909), 13 O. W. R. 951; Tudhope v. Northern Bank 
 (1909). 10 W. L. R. 122; see contra, per Killato, C.J., in Schwartz v. 
 Winkler (1901), 13 M. L. R. 393; and see generally Ashley v Brown 
 (1890), 17 O. A. R. 504; McRoberts v. Steinhoff, 11 O. R. 369 372- 
 Barnes v McKay, 10 O. R. 167. 
 
344 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 31 respect to fraudulent preferences and the provisions 
 Two points of the Statutes and Ordinances on which Johnson v. 
 ip which ffope* and succeeding cases were decided; and there 
 Act differs is one feature common to The Bankruptcy Act and the 
 m^nteActf 1 " various Assignments and Preferences Acts, which is 
 not found in The English Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 First point: The first point of difference is the provision in 
 cencerf'the section 3(1) of E. S. 0. 1887, c. 124, on which Johnson 
 ,p,ie d ? t r rwiii V- Hope was decided, to the effect that nothing in the 
 not validate fraudulent preference section shall apply to ' ' any bona 
 ence" 6 er ~ fide sale or payment made in the ordinary course of 
 trade or calling to innocent purchasers or parties." 
 This may be compared with the last clause in section 92 
 of the English Act of 1869, which read: "but this 
 section shall not affect the rights of a purchaser, payee 
 or incumbrancer in good faith and for valuable con- 
 sideration. ' ' It was held in the leading case of Butcher 
 v. Stead 5 that this clause had the effect of protecting 
 a creditor who was ignorant that he was being pre- 
 ferred 6 . 
 
 As it was no doubt considered that while there 
 might be a hardship in avoiding a transaction which 
 gave an advantage to an innocent creditor, still there 
 was hardship on the other innocent creditors who might 
 be deprived of all possibility of dividends if the trans- 
 action were allowed to stand, the law in England was 
 altered after the decision in Butcher v. Stead, and sec- 
 tion 48(2) of the Act of 1883 was passed on the report 
 of the Select Committee of 1880. Section 48(2) of the 
 Act of 1883 is now section 44(2) of the Act of 1914, 
 which reads : ' ' This section shall not affect the rights 
 of any person making title in good faith through or 
 under a creditor of a bankrupt". Section 44(2) of 
 the English Act may be compared with section 33 of 
 
 * Vbi supra. 
 
 (1875), L. R. 7 H. L. 839; 44 L. J. Bank. 126. 
 
 See per Cairns, L.C., S'.C, at p. 846. 
 
 " The section, however, contains at the end of it a provision which 
 appears to me to introduce a new ingredient into the consideration of 
 fraudulent preferences. ' Before the Act of 1869 if a payment had been 
 made of a debt without pressure and in contemplation of bankruptcy, it 
 would have been a fraudulent preference even though the person receiving 
 the payment did not know that he was being fraudulently preferred." 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 345 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act. The effect of section 32 should Section 31 
 not 'be overlooked, when considering the general scheme 
 of The Bankruptcy Act with respect to the avoidance 
 of fraudulent conveyances. 
 
 The second point of difference between section 31 Second 
 and the section on which Johnson v. Hope was decided ference exists 
 is that section 31 speaks of a conveyance made ""with,T^Q 1 I, ^f ew 
 a view of giving" a creditor a preference, while sec- of giving a_ 
 tion 2 of R. S. 0. 1887, c. 124, speaks of a conveyance pre 
 made "with intent" to give a creditor a preference. 
 The distinction would be perhaps immaterial were it 
 not for what might almost be called the secondary 
 meaning which has been read into the words "with 
 intent", so that now "concurrent intent" must be 
 proven. There is no such secondary meaning attached 
 in England to the phrase "with, a view of giving a 
 preference ' '. 
 
 The leading case on what is meant by ' ' with a view Meaning of 
 of giving a preference ' ' is New, Prance & Garrard v. '&&*£>&&" 
 Hunting 7 in which the decisions of Vaughan-Wliliams, 'preference."' 
 J., and of the Court of Appeal were affirmed by the 
 House of Lords, sub nom Sharp v. Jackson*. Halsbury, 
 L.C., put the matter thus: "The question is whether 
 in fact he had the intention to prefer certain creditors. 
 It has been argued that the debtor must be taken to 
 have intended the natural consequences of his act. I 
 do not think that is true for this purpose" 8 . Lord 
 Shand rejected the distinction made by Vaughan- 
 Williams between view and motive 10 , stating that what 
 
 7 (1897), 1 Q. B. 607; (1897), 2 Q. B. 19; 66 L. J. Q. B. 554; 76 
 L. T. 742 ; 4 Mans. 103. 
 
 8 (1899), A. C. 419; 68 L. J. Q. B. 866; 80 L. T. 841; 6 Mans. 264. 
 S. C, at pp. 421, 422. The court wilj look at the real intentions 
 
 of the debtor and not the actual results of his action : In re and ex parte 
 Tweedale (1892), 2 Q. B. 216; 61 L. J. Q. B. 505; 66 L. T. 233; 9 
 Mor. 110; Bills v. Smith (1S65). 34 L. J. Q. B. 68 ; 6 B. & S. 314; 12 
 L. T. 32; per Lopes, L.J., in Ex parte Taylor in re Croldsmid (1886), 
 18 Q. B. D. 285, at 302 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 195 ; and per Killam, C.J., in 
 Codville v. Eraser (1902), 14 M. L. R. 12, 23, 24, citing Gibson v. 
 BoutU (1836), 3 Sc. 229; Ex parte Bumpstead in re Melnnes (1891), 
 8 T. L. B. 14 ; Ex parte Viney in re Vingoe (1894) , 1 Mans. 416 ; Carr 
 v. Corfield (1890) , 20 O. B. 218 ; Bank of Montreal v. Stair (1918) , 44 
 O. L. R. 79. 
 
 M As to the d^tinction which has 'been made between " view " and 
 " motive " see per Vaughan Williams, in New Prance c6 Oarrards' Trus- 
 tee (1897), 1 Q. B. 607, 617; In re Fleming Fraser & Co. ex parte 
 
346 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Pressure. 
 
 Section 31 it is necessary to consider is "the dominant or real 
 motive of the person making the preference" 1 . It is 
 not necessary that the view should have been the 
 debtor's sole view provided ii is his substantial effect- 
 ual or dominant view 2 ; but the view must be a view to 
 prefer the creditor to whom the payment was made 3 . 
 The question with what view the transaction was made 
 is one of fact*. If the act done can be properly referred 
 to some other view than that of giving the creditor a 
 preference, no policy of law will justify the court in 
 holding that the transaction is fraudulent 5 . 
 
 It was on this basis that the doctrine of pressure 
 was developed, it being held for example that if the 
 debtor entered into the transaction by reason of fear 
 of criminal or other procedings, his view was not a 
 view to prefer the creditor, but to protect himself. The 
 doctrine was so far extended that a mere demand by a 
 creditor, without even a threat of legal proceedings, . 
 might be sufficient pressure to rebut the presumption 
 of a preference . Pressure has been defined as "pres- 
 sure, force, demand or request coming from the credi- 
 tor" 7 . There are even dicta to the effect that a man may 
 
 Trustee (188S), 60 L. T. 154; Ea> parte Suffolk in re Fletcher (1891). 
 9 Mor. 8, 12; Ex parte Deacon m re Ramsay (1913), 2 K. B. 80; 82 
 L. J. K. B. 526 ; 20 Mans. 15 ; Ex parte Griffith in re WUcoxon (1883), 
 23 Ch. D. 69, 74-5 ; 52 L._ J. C. H. 717. 
 
 1 S. C, at p. 427. See further as to the point that view means the 
 dominant view, per Smith, L.J., in New, Prance & Garrard v. Hunting 
 (1897), 2 Q. B. 19, 29; Ex parte Bill in re Bird (1883), 23 Ch. D. 695; 
 52 L. J. Ch. 903 ; Ex parte Taylor in re Goldsmid (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 
 295 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 195, per Cozens-Hardy, J., in In re The Stenotyper, 
 Ltd. (1901), 1 Ch. 250, 255; 70 L. J. Ch. 94; 8 Mans. 203; per Philli- 
 more, J., In re Ramsay ex parte Deacon (1913), 2 K. B. 80, 85, 
 supra; In re Lake ex parte Dyer (1901), 1 K. B. 710; 70 L. J. K. B. 
 390 ; 8 Mans. 145 ; Ex parte Trustee in re Clay (1896) , 3 Mans. 31, 32. 
 
 2 Ex parte Hill in re Bird, supra. 
 "In re Warren ex parte Trustee (1900), 2 Q. B. 138; Hope v.. 
 
 Grant (1890), 20 O. R. 623; In re Blackpool Motor Car Co., Ltd. 
 (1901), 1 Ch. 77, 85; 8 Mans. 193; In re Mills ex parte O. R. (1888), 
 5 Mor. 55. creditor now includes surety, s. 31(3). 
 
 * Bills v. Smith (1865), 34 L. J. Q. B. 68; 6 B. & S. 314. 
 
 Ex parte Blackburn in re Cheesebrough (1871), L. R. 12 Eq. 358; 
 40 L. J. Bank. 79. 
 
 "Stephens v. McArthur (1891), 19 S. C R. 446, and cases there 
 cited. 
 
 ■''Per Harvey, J., in Ross Bros. v. Pearson (1905), l'W. L. R. 338, 
 575, and see Campbell v. Barrie (1871), 31 U. C. R. 279; In re Hurst 
 (1876), 6U. C. P. R. 329. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 347 
 
 put pressure on himself 8 , but in considering whether section 31 
 or not such dicta are pertinent, it must not be forgotten 
 that section 31 requires a much clearer distinction 
 between motive and ."pressure" than has heretofore 
 been necessary; for the admissibility or otherwise of 
 evidence to rebut the presumption of interest will 
 depend on the distinction. 
 
 The point in common between The Bankruptcy Act Fraudulent 
 and R. S. 0. 1887, c. 124, s. 2, which establishes agnate 
 difference between The Bankruptcy Act and the Ener- ? iven b y an 
 
 ° insolvent. 
 
 lish Act is that under The Bankruptcy Act for a trans- 
 action to be a fraudulent preference it must have been 
 made by an insolvent person. Under the English Act 
 no proof need be given that at the time of the transac- 
 tion the debtor was insolvent. Insolvent is defined in 
 section 2{t)\ 
 
 Section 31(2) purports to do away with the doc- Effect of 
 trine of pressure 10 , and to shift the onus of proof to 860 * 31 ®- 
 those interested in upholding the transaction 1 , once 
 the trustee has shown : — 
 
 (a) That the debtor was insolvent at the time the 
 transaction was entered into ; 
 
 • (b) that it occurred within the three months men- 
 tioned in the section ; 
 
 (c) that the effect was to give a preference 2 . 
 
 The presumption which is raised by 31(2) is a 
 rebuttable one 3 , and although evidence of pressure 
 
 'Per Halsbury, L.C., in Sharp v. Jackson (1899), A. C. 419, 424, 
 425; 68 L. J. Q. B. 866; 6 Mans. 264, and per Smith, L.J., in New 
 Prance & Garrard's Trustee (1897), 2 Q. B. 19, 29, 30; The Molsons 
 Bank v. EaMer (1890), 18 S. C. R. 88, 95, 
 
 The decision of the Privy Council in National Bank of Australia v 
 Morris (1892), A. C. 287, defining what amounts to knowledge of insol- 
 vency was on a statute which contained an express proviso that the 
 cred-'tor should not at the time of the payment have known that the 
 debtor was then insolvent. 
 
 10 See Stevens v. McArthur (1891), 19 S. 0. R. 446; The Molsons 
 Bank v Halter (1890), 18 S. C. R. 88; Benallack v. Bank of B N A 
 (1905), 36 S. C. R. 120. 
 
 1 In re Laurie ex parte Green (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B 431- 5 
 Mans. 48. 
 
 2 As to the phrase " if any such conveyance has the effect of giving 
 a preference," see The Molsons Bank v. Halter (1890), 18 S C R 
 88 ; Stephens v. McArthur, supra; The Bank of Australia v Harris 15 
 Moo. P. C. 116 ; Nunes v. Garter, L. R. 1 P. C. 342. 
 
 s Craig v. McKay (1906), 12 O. L. R. 121 ; 8 O. L. R 651 ■ 4 O 
 W. R. 274; 6 O. W. R. 160; 25 Occ. N. 10. Section 31(2)' appears to 
 have given statutory expression to the law as regards onus of proof 
 
34 8 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Sention3i is not receivable to. support the transaction 4 , the pre- 
 _ sumption may be" rebutted by proof that the domin- 
 ant motive is not that of preferring the creditor 5 . 
 Oases'wiere Thus if a debtor makes a payment or transfers 
 *t a^Yew to property to a creditor in good faith believing on rea- 
 giyie a pre- sonable grounds that he is under a legal obligation to 
 sense of ' do so, that is sufficient to negative a fraudulent pref er- 
 oWfeaSon. ence 6 , even though he was not legally bound 7 , but the 
 obligation must appear to the creditor to be legally 
 binding upon him 8 . A sense of moral obligation or 
 honour 9 , or a feeling that to do otherwise would be 
 unjust to the creditor is not sufficient 10 . 
 (6) charge Where it is shown that a charge given to a creditor 
 
 pursuance of was in pursuance of an agreement to give a security, 
 agreement ^he agreement having been entered into prior to the 
 commencement of the three months period, this will 
 generally avail to rebut the presumption of intent to 
 prefer 1 , and the agreement need not have been one of 
 
 as laid down by Vaughan Williams, J., in In re Lake ex parte Dyer. 
 " If a man on the eve of bankruptcy makes a payment to a particular 
 creditor, the presumption immediately arises that he makes that pay- 
 ment with the dominant view of giving a preference to that creditor over 
 his other creditors. There is no need for any evidence that that view 
 was expressed in so many words by the bankrupt ; it is a presumption 
 which would arise from the transact : on." In re Lake ex parte Dyer 
 (1901), 1 Q. B. 710, 717; 70 L. J. K. B. 390; 8 Mans. 145. Where a 
 debtor conveys all his property to a creditor for a past cons : deration 
 it is pftsumed that he intended to prefer that creditor: Payne v. 
 Hendry (1873), 20 Gr. 144; Smithy. Gannan (1853), 2 E. & B. 35; 17 
 Jur. 911; 22 L. J. Q. B. 290; and see notes to section 3(b). As to 
 the onus of proof under the Act of 1864 see McWhirter v: Thome, 19 
 U. C. C. P. 302. 
 
 4 Webster v Crickmore (1898), 25 O. A. R. 97; Edgett v. Steaves 
 (1906), 2 E. L,. R. 131. 
 
 "Codville v. Eraser (1902), 14 M. L. R. 12 ; Lawson v. MoGeoch 
 (1893), 20 O. A. R. 464; Craig v McKay (1906), 12 O. L. R. 126; 
 Webster v. Crickmore (1898), supra; Empire Sash and Door Co. v 
 Maranda (1911), 21 M. Xi. R. 605; 19 W. L. R. 78. 
 
 "Per Vaughan Williams, J., In re Fletcher etc parte Suffolk (1891), 
 9 Mor. 8; Bills v. Smith (1865), 34 L. J. Q. B. 68; 6 B. & S. 314; 
 Bank of Montreal v. Stair (1918), 44 O. h. R. 79; Carr v. Corfield 
 (1890), 20 O. R. 218. 
 
 'In re Vautin ex parte Saffery (1900), 2 Q. B. 325; 68 L. J. Q. B. 
 971 ; 6 Mans. 391. 
 
 "Per Vaughan Williams. J., In re Fletcher ex parte Suffolk, supra. 
 
 ' Ex parte Viney.in re Vingoe (1894), 1 Mans. 416. 
 
 10 In re Blackburn & Co. (1899) , 2 Oh. 725 ; 68 L. J. Oh. 764. . 
 
 1 Webster v. Crickmore (1898), 25 O. A. R. 97-; Lawson v McOeoch 
 (1893), 20 O. A. R. 464; Embury v. West (1888), 15 O. A. R. 357; 
 Clarkson v Sterling (1888), 15 O. A. R. 234; Smith v. Fair (1885), 11 
 O. A. R. 755; Kerry v. James (1894), 21 O. A. R. 338; Stuart v. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 349 
 
 which specific performance would have been decreed?. Section 31 
 If the giving of the security is deliberately postponed 
 in order to avoid injury to the debtor's credit, or to 
 avoid the statutory presumption, the agreement to give 
 the security is of no avail 3 , nor is a promise to give 
 a security in case insolvency becomes imminent, of any 
 benefit to rebut the presumption of fraudulent pref er- 
 ance". But if the debtor becomes bankrupt or makes 
 an assignment before the promise to give security is 
 carried out, the question whether the creditor can 
 succeed in an action for specific performance depends 
 on whether the terms of the promise are sufficiently 
 precise or are too vague and uncertain 5 , and partly on 
 whether or not by reason of any Statute or rule of law 
 the title of the trustee is higher than that of the bank- 
 rupt, so destroying the equity of the creditor 6 . 
 
 Thomson (1893), 23 O. R. 503; Goulding v. Deeming (1887), 15 O. R. 
 201; McRoberts v. Steinhof (1885), 11 O. R. 369; Brayley v. Ellis 
 (1882), 1 O. R. 119, affd. 9 O. A. R. 567; Robins v. Clark (1880). 45 
 U. C. Q. B. 362; Bousteadv. SJiaw (1879), 27 Gr. 280; Northern Com. 
 menial Co. v Powell (1911), 17 W. L. R. 297; Tudhope v. Northern 
 Bank (1909), 10 W. L. R. 122; Toicnscnd v. Xortlieru Crown Bank- 
 (1912), 26 O. L. R. 291, affd. 27 O. L. R. 479 ; Rogers v. Carroll (1899), 
 30 O. R. 328; Ferguson v. Bryans (1904), 15 M. I,. R. 170- ; Wade v. 
 Elliott (1907), 11 O. W. R. 38; Nelles v. Bank of Montreal (1882), 7 
 O. A. R. 743; Re Hurst (1876), 6 U. C. P. R. 329. Where there is 
 some technical error in the security so given the creditors equity under 
 the agreement remains: Fisher v. Bradshaw (1902), 4 O. L. R. 162, 
 and see Wellbanks v. Heney (1890), 19 O. R. 549; Kerry v. James 
 (1894), 21 O. A. R. 338; In re and ex parte Tweedale (1892), 2 Q. B. 
 216 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 505 ; 9 Mor. 1-10 ; Bank of Hamilton v. Tamblyn 
 (1888), 16 O. R. 247. 
 
 2 Ex parte Wilkinson in re Berry (1884). 22 Oh. I). 788; 52 L. J. 
 Ch. 657; CodvUle V Fraser (1902), 14 M. L. R. 12; Webster v. Crick- 
 more (1898), 25 O. A. R. 97; Montgomery v. Corbit (1896) 24 O A R 
 311. 
 
 3 Webster v. Crickmore (1808), 25 O. A. R. 97: Armstrong v John- 
 ston (1900), 32 O. R. 15 ; Breese v. Knox (1897) , 24 O. A. R. 203 ; Jones 
 v. Kinney! (1884), 11 S. C. R. 708; In re Jackson & Bassfor'd, Ltd 
 (1906), 2 Ch. 467; 75 L. J. Ch. 697; 13 Mans. 306; Tooke Bros v 
 Broch (1907). 3 E. L. R. 270; Bentleyiv Morrison (1910), 9 E. L. R. 
 135, 138; and see Clarkson v. McMaster (1895). 25 S. C. R. 96; and 
 per Hagarty, C.J.O., in Clarkson v. Sterling (1888). 15 O. A. R. 234 ; 
 and explanation in Morris v. Morris (1895). A. C. 625- 64 L J P C 
 136; 72 L. T. 879; cf. Ex parte Fisher, L. R. 7 Ch.' 636-41 L J 
 Bank. 62. 
 
 * Armstrong v. Johnston (1900), 32 O. R. 15. 
 
 5 Foster v. Russell (1886), 12 O. R. 136. 
 
 'Per Maelennan, J., in Hope v. May (1896), 24 O. A R 16- 
 Morris v. Morris (1895), A. C. 625; 64 L. ,T. P. C. 136- 72 L T 879 '• 
 McAllister v Forsyth (1884), 12 S. C. R. 1. 
 
350 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 31 A man may make" payments in the ordinary course 
 <C ) p ay . of business with the idea of continuing in business 
 "dinar? 1 the ra '^ ner than with the view of preferring the creditor 7 , 
 course of Of such payments, payments of trade bills are perhaps 
 the strongest example. If paid when due a presump- 
 tion is raised that the payment was not with a view to 
 prefer 8 ; but no such presumption arises on payment 
 after maturity 9 . The same principle applies to the 
 payment in the usual or customary manner of debts 
 which have become due, and to payments made in ful- 
 filment of a contract or engagement to pay in a particu- 
 lar manner or at a particular time 10 , and to other trans- 
 actions made with a view to enable the debtor to con- 
 tinue in business 1 . Thus where a security is given in 
 return for a contemporaneous advance in the belief 
 honestly and reasonably entertained that the advance 
 will enable the debtor to continue his business, there is 
 no fraudulent preference, 2 and the security will be good 
 for all for which it was agreed that it might be held 
 as security 3 . 
 
 ' " Now I think you must say it is not with a view to give an undue 
 preference if a man makes a payment to a creditor in the ordinary course 
 of business. Supposing a bankrupt, although knowing that he is very 
 likely to stop payment next week, struggles on and makes a payment 
 without being particularly asked ; supposing he pays his debts and sends 
 his money to meet his bills on those days on which they become due, and 
 does other things so as to keep himself alive, and in good credit for 
 the time ; ; that would not have been undue preference I think because 
 these payments were not made " in favour of " certain creditors as 
 against others, but were made in the hope — a desperate hope, perhaps — 
 that if he were able to keep himself alive something might turn up in 
 his favour." Per Blackburn, L.J., in Tomkins v. Saffery (1877), 3 A. C. 
 213, 235; 47 L. J. Bank. 11; see also Rust v.. Cooper (1777), 2 Cowp. 
 629 ; Vacher v. Cocks (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 145 ; Ex parte Blackburn in re 
 Cheeselrough (1871), L. K. 12 Eq. 358; 40 L. J. Bank. 79; Ex parte 
 ICevan in re Crawford (1878), L. R. 9 Ch. 752, and Smith v. Hutchinson 
 (1877), 2D. A. R. 405. 
 
 8 In re Clay & Sons ex parte Trustee (1896) , 3 Mans. 31. 
 
 "In re Eaton & Co. ex parte Viney (1897), 2 Q. B. 16. 
 
 10 Ex parte Kevan in re Crawford (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 752; Ex 
 parte MavKenzie in re- Bent (1873) , 42 L. J. Bank. 25 ; Ex .parte 
 I-lodgkin in re Softly (1875). L. R 20 Eq. 746; Ex parte Blackburn in 
 re Cheeselrough (1871), L. R. 12 Eq. 358. 
 
 1 Ross v. Dunn (1889), 16 O. A. R. 552; Hyman v. Cuthbertson 
 (1886). 10 O. R. 443; Codville v. Eraser (1902), 14 M. L. R. 12. 
 
 2 Smith v. McLean (1878), 25 Gr. 567; compare McCrae v. White 
 (1883), 9 S. O. R. 22 ; In re Hurst (1876), 6 U. C. P. R. 329 ; Kalus v. 
 Hirgert (1876), 1 O. A. R. 75; Goates V. Joslin (1866), 12 Gr. 524; 
 Boyd v. Glass (1883), 8 O. A. R. 632. 
 
 s Smith v. Harrington (1881), 29 Gr. 502, 503. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 351 
 
 A payment to a secured creditor, e.g. a creditor section 31 
 who has a lien on the property of the debtor, is not ($ payment 
 within the section, at least, it is considered, where the ^ft ™ red 
 payment does not exceed the value of the security 5 . 
 
 Where a father makes his son a regular allowance (e) Payment 
 it is a question of fact whether a payment made just allowance: 
 before the father becomes bankrupt was given in the 
 ordinary course or for the purpose of securing an 
 advantage to the son over the creditors . If the pay- 
 ment was made with the fraudulent intent of giving 
 the son an advantage over the creditors it cannot on 
 general principles be supported, even though not 
 expressly forbidden by the section 7 . 
 
 A part payment of a debt made with the intention (/) Revivor 
 of enabling the creditor to prove in the forthcoming of debt 
 bankruptcy where the debt had been barred by the 
 Statute of Limitations is not it seems a fraudulent 
 preference 8 . 
 
 The cases just, mentioned are cases in which the other cir- 
 view was not a view to prefer 9 . There are, however, ™Mchput s 
 cases where other circumstances exist which put the ^ e transac- 
 transaction outside the class of fraudulent preference, fraudulent 
 
 Thus if the transaction is with respect to the pro- , ,„ 
 perty of the creditor and not that of the debtor 10 , there tion must 
 is no fraudulent preference, even though the creditor ^ferenee 
 obtains possession of the goods by means of a transac- to debtor's 
 tion which per se would have amounted to a fraudulent perty? 10 
 preference 11 . Similarly it is no fraudulent preference 
 
 "Stevenson v. Wood (1805), 5 Esp. 200; High River Meat Market 
 v. Routledge (1908), 8 W. L. R. 259; and see In re Carl Hirth (1899), 
 1 Q. B. 612; Gonville's Trustee v. Patent Caramel Co. (1912), 1 K. B. 
 599. 
 
 » Aoell v. Daniell (1829) , M. & M. 370. 
 
 'S.C. 
 
 "In re Lane ex parte Gaze (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 74; 58 L. J. Q. B. 
 373 ; 6 Mor. 143. As to acknowledgment of indebtedness for rent see 
 Finch v. Oilray (1889), 16 O. A. R. 484; Boone v. Martin (1920), 47 
 O. L. R. 205. 
 
 9 See as to the circumstance that the transaction was kept secret: 
 Crosby v. Crouch (1809), 2 Camp. 166 ; 16 East. 256. 
 
 10 See as to what was found to be a payment by the debtor even 
 though a third party intervened : AftHer v. Reid (1879), 4 O. A. R. 479. 
 
 11 Ex parte Symons in re Jordan (1880) . 14 Ch. D. 693, 697 ; In re 
 Landrock ex parte Fabian (1884) , 1 Mor. 62 : Robinson v Wilson 
 (1908), 12 O. W. R. 198; Bank of Hamilton V. Tamblyn (1888), 16 
 O. R. 247. 
 
352 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 (b) Money 
 clothed with 
 trust. 
 
 section 31 for a debtor to refuse to accept goods consigned to him 
 even when this enables the consignor to exercise his 
 right of stoppage in transitu 1 ; but if the debtor volun- 
 tarily 2 returns goods which he has already accepted 
 and which have become his, there will be a fraudulent 
 preference 3 : 
 
 Where money is advanced for a specific purpose 
 and so clothed with a trust, and the object for which 
 it was advanced fails, there will be no fraudulent pre- 
 ference .if the money is returned to the person who 
 advanced it 4 . 
 
 It has been held by a majority of the Supreme 
 Court of Canada that a payment by a trustee to his 
 cestui que trust to make good a breach o-fL trust is not 
 a fraudulent preference; for it was said the relation- 
 ship between trustee and cestui que trust is not that 
 of debtor and creditor 5 . It would at least seem that 
 where the bankrupt pays the money in order to make 
 good a breach of trust this will negative the presump- 
 tion that the payment was made with the dominant view 
 of giving a preference 6 . But where trust funds have 
 
 1 In re Landrock ex parte Fabian (1884), 1 Mor. 62. 
 
 2 Ex parte Deacon in re Ramsay (1913), 2 K. B. 80; 80 L. J. K. B. 
 526 ; 20 Mans. 15. This case decided on the English Act must 'be read 
 subject to the different provisions in The Bankruptcy Act 
 
 3 Barnes v. Freeland (1794), 6 T. R. 80; Dana V. McLean (1901), 
 2 O. L. R. 466 ; In re Fletcher ex parte Suffolk (1891), 9 Mor. 8. 
 
 . * Toovey v. Milne (1819) . 2 B. & Aid. 683 ; Edwards v. Gly'n (1859), 
 28 L. J. Q. B. 350 ; Ex parte Kelly, in re Smith-Fleming £ Co., 11 Ch. D. 
 306; 48 L. J Bank. 65; Ex parte Saffery in re Vautin (1900), 2 Q. B. 
 325 ; 69 L J. Q. B. 703 ; 7 Mans. 291 ; In re Rogers exi parte Holland & 
 Hannen (1891), 8 Mor. 243. 
 
 "Per Strong, Taschereau and Gwynne in the Molsons Bank T 
 HaHer (1890), 18 S. C. R. 88, following Ex parte Stubbins in re 
 Wilkinson (1881), 17 Ch. D. 58; 50 L. J. Ch. 547; Ex parte Taylor in 
 re Ooldsmid (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 295; 56 L. J. Q. B. 195; Ex parte 
 Kelly in re Smith (1879), 11 Ch. D. 306; 48 L. J. Bank. 65; see also 
 Halwell v. Township of Wilmot (1897), 24 O. A. R. 628; In re 
 Hutchinson ex parte Ball (1887), 35 W. R. 264; and Gibbons V. Mc- 
 Donald (1892), 20 S. C. R. 587; see, however, per Halsbury, L.C., in 
 Sharp v. Jackson (1899), A. C. 419, 426; 68 L. j, Q. B. 866; 6 Maris. 
 264, commented on by Rigby, ' L.J., In re Lake ex parte Dyer (1901), 
 1 K. B. 710, 715 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 390 ; 8 Mans. 145. and per Buckley, J., 
 In re Blackpool Motor Car Co., Ltd. (1901), 1 Ch. 77, 85; 70 L. J. Ch. 
 61 ; 8 Man. 193. 
 
 8 Per Vaughan Williams, L.J., In re Lake ex parte Dyer (1901), 
 1 K. B. 710, 717 ; 70 L. J, K. B. 390 ; 8 Mans. 145 ; see also Sharp v. 
 Jackson (1899) , A. C. 419 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 866 ; 6 Mans. 264, where, how- 
 ever, the trustee was said to have put " pressure " on himself. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 353 
 
 been paid over to a third party, who is not the trustee section 31 
 and who seeks to restore their equivalent before his ~ 
 bankruptcy, there is a fraudulent preference 7 . 
 
 The Act defines what transactions may be fraudu- Transactions 
 lent preferences. A conveyance or transfer of pro- be frau™u- y 
 perty 8 or any charge 9 made thereon may be a fraudu- |. ent P re ~ 
 lent preference 10 . 
 
 Thus an assignment of book-debts may be a 
 fraudulent preference 1 , and an assignment of all the . 
 debtor's property for the benefit of certain named 
 creditors only is a fraudulent preference 2 . 
 
 The giving of a chattel mortgage to a third party 
 for the benefit of a surety may likewise be a fraudu- 
 lent preference 3 . When a person to whom a chattel 
 mortgage has been given and book debts assigned 
 allows the debtor to collect the book debts the assignee 
 will not, in default of any special agreement on the 
 point, be allowed to retain the value of what has been 
 collected out of the proceeds of the property covered 
 by the mortgage which has been declared fraudulent 4 . 
 
 Under certain provincial Acts, payments of money ( ) 
 were not fraudulent preferences. Under The 5«wA;- m ^ ments 
 ruptcy Act payments of money are within the section. 
 Endorsing and giving to a creditor the unaccepted 
 cheque of a third person in the debtor's favour is not 
 a payment of money to the creditor by the debtor 5 . 
 
 7 Trusts and Guarantee Co. v. Munro (1900), 19 O L. R. 480- 14 
 0. W. R. 699; 1 O. W. N. 52. 
 
 8 In re Roberts ex parte Daniel (1888) , 5 Mor. 213 ; Bank of Mont- 
 real v. UcTavish (1867)., 13 Gr. 395. 
 
 'In re Jackson <t Bassford, Ltd. (1906), 2 Ch. 467; 75 L J Ch 
 697 ; 13 Mans. 306. 
 
 10 Property is deBned in section 2(dd). The property must not be 
 the property of the creditor : see supra, p. 351. 
 
 ^Labatt v. Biwel (1881), 28 Gr. 593; Griffiths v Perry (1881). 6 
 O. A. R. 672 ; but see McGregor v. Hume (1869), 28 U. C. Q. B. 380. 
 
 2 See passim Thome v. Torrance (1867), 16 TJ. C. C P 445- aid 
 18 TJ. C. C. P. 29. 
 
 "Steelier Lithographic Go. v. Ontario Seed Go (1912), 46 S. C. R. 
 541, and see section 31(3). The substance of such transactions is to be 
 looked at: Powell v. CaUer (1885), 8 O. R. 505; and see In re Black- 
 pool Motor Car Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 77 ; 70 L. 3. Ch. 61; 8 Mans. 193. 
 
 ' Stecher Lithographic Co. v. Ontario Seed Co., supra 
 
 'Davidson v, Fraser (1896), 23 O. A. R. 439, affd. Fraser v. David- 
 son (1897), 28 S. C. R. 272; as to "payment" under Provincial Acts 
 
 B.C.— 23 
 
354 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 31 Judicial proceedings taken or suffered are within 
 
 ~~^ b ] 'the section. Thus where a debtor permits judgment 
 
 judicial t g- w default this may be a fraudulent preference 6 . 
 
 T)l*OPAPQ 111 £S 
 
 taken or A collusive conf ession of judgment is within the sec- 
 suffered. tion 7 . In England under a Statute which made the 
 suffering of an execution an act of bankruptcy it has 
 been held that where a trader commits such an act 
 of bankruptcy by procuring his goods to be taken in 
 . execution with intent to defeat or delay creditors, the 
 execution though levied bona fide by the execution 
 creditor, was a fraudulent preference 8 . It has been 
 held in an old case that if after the assignment of a 
 bankrupt's estate a creditor who knows of the assign- 
 ment attaches the money of the bankrupt abroad, the 
 assignees may recover it in an action for money 
 received to their use 9 , 
 what is not A transaction which is not a fraudulent preference 
 preference 11 * °^ the creditors of a partnership, because it prefers 
 ■may foa a only the separate creditors of the partners, is a f raudu- 
 transferor lent transfer of property and an act of bankruptcy 10 .' 
 iaw?r™ud b or -^ case which does not fall within the definition of a 
 fi* 3 *, within fraudulent preference may also be a common law 
 fraud 1 , or fall within 13 Eliz. c. 5. But a wife entitled 
 to dower in the lands of her husband may without 
 infringing 13 Eliz. c. 5, require security from him on 
 his property as a condition to the bar of her dower. 
 The security so given will be a valid security as against 
 
 see per Osier, J., in Campbell v. Roche (1891), 18 O. A. E. 646, 656; 
 RoUnson v. McQilUvrwy (1906), 12 O. L. R. 91; (1906), 13 0. L. K. 
 232; (1907), 39 S. O. It. 281; Gordon MacKay v. Union Bank of Can- 
 ada (1899), 26 O. A. R. 155. 
 
 "Eos parte Lancaster in re Marsden (1883), 25 Oh. D. 311; 53 
 L. J. Ch. 1123. 
 
 * Edison Electric v. Westminster Tramway Co. (1897), A. C. 193'; 
 66 L. J. P. C. 36 ; 4 Mans. 244. 
 
 'Hall v. Wallace, 7 M. & W. 353; and see In re Jones (1868), 4 
 U. 0. P. R. 317. 
 
 'Hunter v. Potts (1791), 4 T. R. 182; affd. suo nom. Phillips V. 
 Hunter (1795), 2 H. Bl. 402 ; but see Roe v. Smith (1868), 15 Gr. 344; 
 which, however, was decided under a statute which did not contain such 
 an extensive definition of " property " as that in the present Act. See sec- 
 tion 2 ((id). 
 
 "Section 3(6) ; Ex parte Snowoall in re Douglas (1872), L. R. t 
 Ch. 534; 41 L. J. Bank. 49; Em parte McLean, 24 L. T.. 144, and see 
 Calvin v. Tranchemontagne (1870), 14 Ii. C. J. 210. 
 
 'In re Badham (1893), 10 Mor. 252, 257. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 355 
 
 creditors provided the consideration obtained by the Section 32 
 wife is fair and reasonable, and the transaction is ~ 
 otherwise bona fide 2 . Where the goods covered by 
 the chattel mortgage to the wife are seized and sold 
 by execution creditors the court may order the pro- 
 ceeds of the goods to remain in court to abide further 
 order so that the wife may have the same security as 
 she had by the mortgage 3 . 
 
 Evidence of other acts of preference in favour of Evidence of 
 other creditors committed by the debtor shortly before other acts " 
 or shortly after the transaction may be given to show 
 his intent 4 . 
 
 The word "creditor" in the section means any per- Meaning of 
 son who at the date when the impeached transaction " creditor." 
 was entered into was entitled, if bankruptcy super- 
 vened, to prove in the bankruptcy and share in the 
 distribution of the bankrupt's estate, and so includes a 
 surety 5 . 
 
 32 (1) Subject to the foregoing provisions of Payments, 
 this Act with respect to the effect of bank-^™* 
 ruptcy or of an authorized assignment on^*^£f te 
 an execution, attachment or other process tionpro- 
 against property, and with respect to the tected ' 
 avoidance of certain settlements and pre- 
 ferences, nothing in this Act shall invali- 
 date, in the case of a bankruptcy or an 
 authorized assignment, — 
 O) any payment by the bankrupt or 
 
 assignor to any of his creditors ; 
 (6) any payment or delivery to the bank- 
 rupt or assignor ; 
 
 'Beavis v. MoQuire (1882), 7 O. A. R. 704: Forrest V. Laycock 
 (1871), 18 Gr. 611; Black v. Fountain (1876), 23 Gr. 174; Fleury v. 
 Pringle (1878), 26 Gr. 67; McDonald v. Curran (1909), 1 O. W. N. 121. 
 
 3 Morris v. Martin (1890), 19 O. R. 564. 
 
 4 In re Ramsay ex parte Deacon (1913), 2 K. B. 80 ; 82 L. J K B 
 526 ; 20 Mans. 15. 
 
 5 Ex parte Read in. re Paine (1897) . 1 Q. B. 122 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 71 ; 
 3 Mans. 309; In re Blackpool Motor Car Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 77; 70 l! 
 J. Ch. 61 ; 8 Man. 193 ; and see Ex parte Kelly in re Smith Fleming & 
 Co. (1879), 11 Ch. D. 306; 48 L. J. Bank. 65; Ex parte Taylor in re 
 Goldsmid (1886), 18 Q. B. (D. 295 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 195 ; Sharpe v Jack- 
 son (1899), A. C. 419. 
 
356 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 38 
 
 "Adequate 
 valuable don- 
 sideration " 
 defined. 
 
 (c) any conveyance or transfer by the 
 bankrupt or assignor for adequate valu- 
 able consideration; 
 
 (d) any contract, dealing, or transaction by 
 or with the bankrupt or assignor for 
 adequate valuable consideration; 
 
 provided that both the following conditions 
 are complied with, namely:— 
 
 (i) that the payment, delivery, convey- 
 ance, assignment, transfer, contract, 
 dealing, or transaction, as the case may 
 be, is in good faith and takes place 
 before the date of the receiving order 
 or authorized assignment; and, 
 (ii) that the person (other than the 
 debtor) to, by, or with, whom the pay- 
 ment, delivery, conveyance, assign- 
 ment, transfer, contract, dealing or 
 transaction was made, executed or 
 entered into, has not at the time of the 
 payment, delivery, conveyance, assign- 
 ment, transfer, contract, dealing or 
 transaction, notice of any available act 
 of bankruptcy committed by the bank- 
 rupt or assignor. 
 (2) The expression "adequate valuable con- 
 sideration" in paragraph (c) of this section 
 means a consideration of fair and reason- 
 able money value with relation to that of the 
 property conveyed, assigned or transferred, 
 and in paragraph (d) hereof means a con- 
 sideration of fair and reasonable money 
 value with relation to the known or reason- 
 ably to be anticipated benefits of the con- 
 tract, dealing or transaction. 
 
 Cross References Act: Effect of E. O. and A. A. on executions, 
 etc., 11(1) of. 11(10) ; avoidance of settlements, 29; avoidance of pre- 
 ferences, 31; available act of bankruptcy defined, 2(h). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts, 1914. s. 45 and cf. 46; 
 1883, s. 49; 1869, ss. 94, 95(1). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 357 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Object of the section. Section 32 
 
 Cases where the protection of the section is unnecessary- 
 
 Section may protect fraudulent conveyances. 
 
 Circumstances under which the section affords protection. 
 
 Oases where no protection. 
 
 Notice. 
 
 Available Act of Bankruptcy. 
 
 Bona fides. 
 
 Transaction must be completed" before the date of receiving order. 
 
 Adequate valuable consideration. 
 
 Any payment by the bankrupt to any of his creditors. 
 
 Any payment or delivery to the bankrupt or assignor. 
 
 Any contract, dealing or transaction. 
 
 The words "before that time" which followed the 
 words "committed by the bankrupt" in the last line of ' 
 section 32(1) (d) (ii), were deleted by section 26 of 
 The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921. 
 
 The object of the section is to obviate the hardship The object 
 incident to the relation back of the title of the trustee 7 section. 
 and to protect bona fide dealings with the bankrupt 
 which have been completed before notice of an act of 
 bankruptcy 8 . This section differs from its English 
 counterpart in requiring ' ' adequate valuable considera- 
 tion", not merely "valuable consideration". The 
 word "bankruptcy" as used in this section probably 
 means the condition of a debtor against whom a receiv- 
 ing order and adjudication have been made 9 . The 
 effect of the making of a receiving order and of an 
 authorized assignment on executions, attachments and 
 other process against property is given in section 
 11(1). It should be noted that section 32 is not 
 expressly made subject to section 30. 
 
 There are cases in which the protection afforded Cases iwhere, 
 
 by this section either does not apply or is not required; ucVoTthe 
 
 such as transactions which occur prior to the date to sectionis un- 
 necessary. 
 
 7 Sections 4(10), 25. It seems to have been overlooked that there is 
 no " relation back " in the ease of an authorized assignment. 
 
 'In re O'Shea's Settlement (1895), 1 Ch. 325, 330; 2 Mans. 4. 
 " The intention of this section is to place a creditor who gets back his 
 goods before notice of an act of bankruptcy in the same position as a 
 creditor who gets them back before commission of an act of bankruptcy " : 
 Graham v. Furoer (1853), 14 C. B. 134, 156; In re Seaman ex parte 
 Furness Finance Co. (1896), 1 Q. B. 412, 415; 65 L. J. Q. B. 348; 3 
 Man. 19. 
 
 "See notes to sections 4(10), 6(3). 
 
358 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 32 which the title of the trustee relates back 10 . There 
 _ may even be transactions occurring within the period 
 
 covered by the relation back of the title of the trustee 
 for which the protection afforded by this section need 
 not be invoked. Such a case occurs when the trustee 
 has no higher or better title than the bankrupt. Thus 
 where a sale of goods has been induced by the fraud 
 of the purchaser the vendor on discovering the fraud 
 is entitled within a reasonable time, although he has 
 notice of an available act of bankruptcy, to disaffirm 
 the sale and retake possession of the goods 1 , and to 
 set off the damages caused by the fraud of the bank- 
 , ' rupt against the amount paid on account of the pur- 
 chase price 2 . 
 
 On the other hand the court is not bound to give 
 the benefit of section 32 to all cases which fall outside 
 sections 29 and 31. If any such transaction is contrary 
 to the policy of the bankruptcy laws, the protection 
 of section 32 may not be extended to it 3 . While sec- 
 tion 32 protects a bona fide transferee from the debtor, 
 it does not protect a bona fide transferee from a trans- 
 feree of the debtor, 4 nor does it in England protect 
 any conveyance or payment made in pursuance 
 of a contract which is protected by the section 5 . 
 
 "See Young v. Hope (1848). 2 Ex. 104, 108; per Campbell, L.J., in 
 Brewin v. Short (1855), 5 E. & B. 227; 24 L. J. Q. B. 297, 300. The 
 doctrine of relation back is discussed in Ponsford Baker & Co. v. Union 
 of Smith's Bank, Ltd. (1906), 2 Ch. 444, 451; 75 L. J. Ch. 724; 13 
 Mans. 321, and in the cases mentioned in the notes to section 6(3). 
 
 1 In re Eastgate ex parte Ward (1905), 1 K. B. 465; 74 L. J. K. B. 
 324 ; 12 Mans. 11. 
 
 2 Tilley v. Bowman, Ltd. (1910), 1 K. B. 745; 79 L. J. K. B. 547; 
 17 Mans. 97. That is under the English practice with respect to set-off. 
 See notes to section 28(1). 
 
 3 In re Badham ex parte Palmer (1893) , 10 Mor. 252 ; Ex parte Jay 
 in re Harrison (1880), 14 Ch. D. 19; Ex parte Barter in re Walker 
 (1884), 26 Ch. D. -5i0; 53 L. J. Ch. 802; Ex parte MacKay in re 
 Jeavons (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 643; 42 L. J. Bank. 68, and compare Ex 
 parte Waller in re Dunkley (1905), 2 K. B. 683; 74 L. J. K. B. 963; 
 12 Mans. 384. In certain provinces there is no common law of bank- 
 ruptcy. See Chapters II., III., IV. 
 
 *In re Ounslourg (No. 3) (1920), 2 K. B. 426; 89 L. J. K. B. 425; 
 (1920), B. & C. R. 50. 
 
 But protection may be given on grounds of equity even to secon- 
 dary alienees to the extent at least of the consideration given, per Wright 
 J ; , in In re Slobodinsky ex parte Moore (1903), 2 K. B. 531-2; 72 L. 
 J. K. B. 883 ; 10 Mans. 341 ; and the cases there referred to, and per 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 359 
 
 Thus where a contract is made for the sale of section 32 
 property, time being of the essence of the contract, - 7 
 
 the purchaser 'being unaware of any available act of 
 bankruptcy, and; before the date for completion the 
 purchaser becomes aware of an available act of bank- 
 ruptcy, he is entitled in England to refuse to complete, 
 and to recover back the deposit paid because the vendor 
 is not in a position to give either a good conveyance 
 or a valid receipt for the purchase money 6 . Where 
 no injustice will be done the defendant by not applying 
 the terms ,of the section as in the case of a transaction 
 which is on the border line of a settlement under sec- 
 tion 29, it may be that section 32 will not be applied 
 by the court 7 . 
 
 Although the section does not apply to protect Section may 
 transactions impeached as fraudulent preferences or j?™^^,,,. 
 settlements it may apply to protect transactions conveyances, 
 impeached as fraudulent conveyances 8 , provided the 
 transaction is not entered into for the very purpose of 
 doing that which in law constitutes an act of bank- 
 ruptcy 9 ; and provided there is good faith 10 , even 
 though the impeached transaction is an act of bank- 
 ruptcy 1 . 
 
 The section affords protection to transactions 
 where, 
 
 Kennedy, L.J., in Ex parte Green in re Hart (19121, 3 K. B. 6, 18; 
 81 L. J. K. B. 1213 ; 19 Mans. 334. 
 
 « Powell v. Marshall Parkes & Co. (1899), 1 Q. B. 710; 68 L. J. 
 Q. B. 477; 6 Mans. 157, and see Western v. Harris {1889). L. J. N. C. 
 113, cf. Ex- parte Holthausen in re Scheibler, L. It. 9 Oh. 722 ; 44 L. J. 
 Bank. 26. Under The Bankruptcy Act the relation back of the title of 
 the trustee is not so extensive as under the English Act. See notes to 
 section 4(10). 
 
 ' Sturmey's Trustee in re Sturmey (1913), 107 L. T. 718. 
 
 8 Sturmey's Trustee in re Sturmey, supra. 
 
 °In re Sharp ens parte Oundry (1900), 83 L. T. 416. 
 
 10 In re Jukes ex parte O. R. (1902), 2 K. B. 58; 71 L. J. K. B. 
 710; 9 Mans. 249, and see Munro v Standard Bank of Canada, (1913), 
 30 O. L. R. 12 ; 16 D. L. K. 293. There is not good faith where a credi- 
 tor takes a transfer of substantially the whole of the property of the 
 debtor in payment of a past debt knowing that there are other creditors: 
 In re Jukes ex parte O. R. (1902), supra; but see In re Dunkley ex 
 parte Waller (1905) , 2 K. B. 683 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 963 ; 12 Mans. 384. 
 
 Shears v. Goddard (1896), 1 Q. B. 406; 65 L. J, Q. B. 344; 
 3 Mans. 24. See formerly Smith v. Gannan (1853), 2 E. & B. 35 • 22 
 L. J. Q. B. 290. 
 
360 
 
 TBE bankruptcy act. 
 
 Section 32 
 
 Circumstan- 
 ces under 
 which the 
 section 
 affords pro- 
 tection. 
 
 (i) the person dealing with the bankrupt — 
 
 (a) has no notice of an available act of bank- 
 ruptcy 2 , and 
 
 (b) has acted in good faith; where 
 
 (2) the transaction is completed before the date 
 of the receiving order or authorized assignment 3 ; and 
 
 (3) adequate valuable consideration has passed 4 . 
 
 Where any one of these requirements is missing 
 the transaction is not protected against the title of the 
 trustee, who alone has authority to deal with the .pro- 
 perty of the debtor and to give receipts for payments 5 . 
 Thus when the creditor knows of an available act of 
 bankruptcy committed by his debtor, the creditor can- 
 not be compelled to receive payment of his debt 6 . 
 Further, the debtor of an insolvent person, who in 
 England pays over to an assignee for the general 
 benefit of creditors the debt owing to the bankrupt, 
 having notice of the act of bankruptcy constituted by 
 the assignment, may be required to pay over again to. 
 the trustee in bankruptcy, for in England there are no 
 authorized assignment provisions, and such an assignee 
 may be a trustee de son tort 7 . Similarly after notice 
 of an act of bankruptcy a banker paying the drafts or 
 cheques of the debtor does so at his peril subject to 
 the possible relation back of the title of the trustee 8 . 
 
 2 " Available act of bankruptcy" is denned in section 2(A). Cf. 
 section 4(3) (6). 
 
 3 From which time on there is no doctrine of relation back. 
 
 4 This is only required in two of the four cases set out in the section. 
 
 6 See notes to section 6(3). 
 
 "And the court, if it has a discretion in the matter, should, not 
 under such circumstances order proceedings on a judgment to be stayed 
 on payment of the amount due on the judgment: Brook v. Emerson 
 (1906), 95 L. T. 821, and see In re Gentry (1910). 1 K. B. 825; 
 79 L. J. K. B. 585 ; 17 Mans. 104 ; and cases collected under sec- 
 tion 6(3). 
 
 7 Davis v. Petrie (1906), 2 K. B. 786; 75 L. J. K. B. 992; 13 Mans. 
 344. 
 
 'Vernon v. Hankey (1787), 2 T. R. 113; McCarthy v. Capital & 
 Counties Bank (1911), 2 K. B. 1088; 81 L. J. K. B. 14; 18 Mans. 343; 
 Ponsford Baker & Co. v. Union of London & Smith's Bank (1906), 2 
 Ch. 444 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 724 ; 13 Mans. 321. The Bankruptcy Act being 
 modelled on the English Act of 1883 does not contain the equivalent of 
 section 46 of the English Act of 1914, which is designed to prevent the 
 inconvenience which arses from the rule of law in these cases, and from 
 Davis v. Petrie (1906), 2 K. B. 786; 75 L. J. K B. 992; 13 Mans. 344. 
 Section 46 of the English Act of 1914 reads: — "46. A payment of money 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 361 
 
 On the 'other hand the section does not protect every section 32 
 innocent creditor who has no notice of an act of hank- cases where 
 ruptcy. Thus where a trader fraudulently transfers ™P rotec ~ 
 his "business to a company and then induces a mort- 
 gagee of the business to release his mortgage in return 
 for debentures of the company, and the transfer to the 
 company is set aside on the ground that the company 
 had notice of an available act of bankruptcy, or was 
 privy to the fraud, the mortgagee is not entitled to be 
 put back into his original position. His remedy is to 
 prove against the debtor's estate for damages for 
 fraud 9 . But where in a .similar case the innocent party 
 contracts with the debtor before the transfer to the 
 company, the transaction would appear to be within the 
 protection of section 32_and the creditor entitled to 
 prove against the debtor's business for the amount 
 by which the company falls short by reason of not hav- 
 ing the debtor's business* . 
 
 Notice, it has been said, means knowledge or wil- Notice 
 fully abstaining from acquiring such knowledge 1 . A 
 creditor has notice of an act of bankruptcy when he 
 has received formal notice, even if he has not read the 
 notice 2 , or when he has received notice of facts 
 which were sufficient to have informed him that an act 
 of bankruptcy had been committed if he had drawn the 
 natural inference from the facts 3 . Thus notice of the 
 filing of a petition is notice of an act of bankruptcy*, to 
 
 or delivery of property to a person subsequently adjudged bankrupt, or 
 to a person claiming by assignment from him, shall, notwithstanding 
 anything in this Act, be a good discharge to the person paying the money 
 or delivering the property, if the payment or delivery is made before the 
 actual date on which the receiving order is made and without notice of 
 the presentation of a bankruptcy petition, and is either pursuant to the 
 ■ordinary 1 course of business or otherwise bona fide." 
 
 'In re Qoldburg ex parte SUverstone (1912), 1 K. B. 384; 81 L. J. 
 K. B. 382 ; 19 Mans. 44. 
 
 10 In re Slobodinsky ex parte Moore (1903), 2 K. B. 517; 72 L. J. 
 K. B. 883; 10 Mans. 341; and see Eat parte Green in re Bart (1912), 3 
 K. B. 6, 18; 81 £. J. K. B. 1213; 19 Mans. 334. 
 
 'Per Coltman and Maule, JJ., in Bird v. Bass (1843), 6 M. & G. 
 143, 147. 
 
 2 Ex parte Snowball in re Douglas (1872), L. K. 7 Ch. 534; 41 
 L. J. Bank. 49. 
 
 ' Ex parte Snowball in re Douglas, supra; National Bank of Aus- 
 tralia v. Morris (1892), A. C. 287, 290; Smith v. Osborn (1858), 1 
 F. & F. 267 ; Lackington v Elliott (1844) , 13 L. J. C. P. 153 ; 7 M. & G. 
 538 ; In re Sedgwick ex parfe Sobbs (1892) , 9 Mor. 217. 
 
 'Lucas v. Dicker (1880), 6 Q. B. D. 84 ; 50 L. J C. P. 190; In re 
 Sedgewiek ex parte Hobbs, 9 Mor. 217. 
 
362 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 32 the extent at least of putting the onus on the person 
 claiming the protection of the section 5 ; but semble, no- 
 tice that a bankruptcy petition has been dismissed is not 
 constructive notice that an act of bankruptcy has been 
 committed by the debtor 6 , and notice of an intention 
 to commit an act of bankruptcy is not notice of an 
 available act of bankruptcy 7 , for, it seems, there can- 
 not be notice of an act of bankruptcy before it takes 
 place 8 . A notice stating circumstances which may or 
 may not amount to an act of bankruptcy is insufficient 9 . 
 Any communication which ought to induce the creditor 
 to believe the notification to be true, such as formal 
 notice from the solicitors of the petitioning creditor, 
 will be sufficient 10 . A general statement without par- 
 ticularizing the act of bankruptcy may be sufficient 1 . 
 If an .attempt is made to describe the act of bankruptcy 
 and the facts given do not constitute an act of bank- 
 ruptcy there is no notice 2 . A creditor is deemed to 
 have notice iof proceedings under his own execution, 
 and when an act of bankruptcy occurs in consequence 
 thereof he cannot receive moneys to which the title 
 of the trustee relates back 3 . In certain eases notice to 
 a person other than the creditor is notice to the 
 creditor*. 
 
 "In re Gershon & Levy ex parte Coote and Richards (1915), 2 K. 
 B. 527 ; 84 L. J. K. B. 1668 ; 1 H. B. R. 146. 
 
 "In re 0' Shea's Settlement (1895), 1 Ch. 325; 64 L. J. Ch. 263; 2 
 Mans. 4. 
 
 * Ex parte Arnold in re Wright (1876), 3 Ch. D. 70; In re Waugh 
 ex parte Dickm (1876), 4 Ch. D. 524; 46 L. J. Bank; 26; Ex> parte 
 Halifax (1842), 2 M. D. & D. 544; In re Morgan ex parte Turner 
 (1895), 2 Mans. 508; Ex parte Glynn in re Ridge (1840), 6 Jur. 839; 
 1 M. D. & D. 25. 
 
 8 In re Boocock (1916), 1 K. B. 816. 
 
 "Evans v Hallam (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 713; 40 L. J. Q.'B. 229; 
 Lucas v. Dicker (1880) . 6 Q. B. D. 84 ; 50 L. J. C. P. 190 ; 43 L. T. 429 ; 
 29 W. R. 115; In re Boocock (1916), 1 K. B. 816. 
 
 10 Hope v. Meek (1855), 10 Ex. 829; 25 L. J. Ex. 11; as to notice 
 by post see Bird v. Bass (1843), 6 M. & G. 143; Smith v Osoorn 
 (1858), 1 F. & P. 267. • 
 
 ^'Turner v. Hardcastle (1863), 11 C. B. N. S. 683; 31 L. J. C. P. 
 193 ; Udal v. Walton (1845), 14 M. & W. 254. 
 
 * Conway v. Nail (1845), 1 C. B. 643, 649. 
 
 "Ex parte Dawes in re Husband (1875), L. U. 19 Eq. 438; 44 L. J. 
 Bank. 62. 
 
 4 Edwards v. Cooper (1847). 11 Q. B. 33; Pike v. Stevens (1848), 
 12 Q. B. 465; 17 L. J. Q. B. 282; Pennell V. Stephens (1849), 7 C. B. 
 987; 18 L. J. C. P. 291; Brewin v. Briscoe (1859), 28 L. J. Q. B. 329; 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 363 
 
 The words "notice of an available act of bank- Section 32 
 ruptcy" mean notice of an act of bankruptcy which Available 
 would have been available for the making of the ru t toy >ank " 
 adjudication which is actually made, i.e. an act of 
 bankruptcy committed within six months from the pre- 
 sentation of the petition on which the adjudication is 
 founded 5 . 
 
 A transaction which is contrary to the policy of the Bona fides 
 bankruptcy law , even though it does not fall within 
 any prohibitory section, cannot be said to be bona fide, 
 and will not be protected 7 . Payments made, not in the 
 ordinary course of business 8 , but made and accepted 
 for the very purpose of doing that which in law con- 
 stitutes an act of bankruptcy, which payments would 
 have been known both to the payer and to the recipi- 
 ient to constitute an act of bankruptcy had they 
 adverted to the legal effect of the facts known to them, 
 will not be protected as made in good faith 9 . Where 
 a creditor takes a transfer of substantially the whole 
 of the property of his debtor in payment of a past debt, 
 with notice that there are other creditors, he cannot 
 be said to be acting in good faith 10 . 
 
 Ex parte Schulte in, re Matanle (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 409 ; In re Ashton 
 ea> parte McGowan (1891) , 8 Mor. 72 ; Brittain v Brown. 24 L. T. N. S. 
 504, 506; Ex parte McGowan in re Ashton, 8' Mor. 72 ; 39 W. R. 320. 
 
 'Ex parte Gilbey in re Bedell (1878), 8 Ch. D. 248 ; 47 L. J. Bank. 
 49'; Ex parte QuUter in re Barnes (1882), 30 W R. 739; per Cotton, 
 L.J., in Hood v. Newby (1882) , 21 Ch. D. 605, at 611 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 204, 
 differing from James, L.J., in Em parte Crosbie in re Bedell (1877), 7 
 Oh. D. 123, 125 ; 47 L. J. Bank. 19 ; see as to what is an available act of 
 bankruptcy, sections 2(h), 4(3) (6), 8(2). 
 
 * Or of the general law: Ward v. Fry, 50 W. R. 72 ; 85 L. T. 394. 
 
 1 Ex parte Palmer in re Badham (1893), 69 L. T. 356; 10 Mor. 
 .252; compare Ex parte Waller in re Dunkley & Son (1905), 2 K. B. 
 683 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 963 ; 12 Mans. 384 ; and see Chapter VI. 
 
 "As to what is in the ordinary course of business see Greenburg v. 
 hem (1905). 2 W. L. R. 64. 
 
 8 In re Sharp, 83 L. T. 416 et seg. 
 
 10 In re jAikes ex parte Official Receiver (1902), 2 K. B. 58; 71 
 L. J. K. B. 710 ; 9 Mans. 249, and see under the Statute of Elizabeth 
 Cameron v Cusack (1890), 17 O. A. R. 493, 495; McDonald v. Horan 
 (1908), 12 O. W. R. 1151. The expression bona fide under the various 
 provincial assignments Acts has not necessarily the same signification 
 as under The Bankruptcy Act. In many cases under provincial Acts 
 the test of bona fides is whether the creditor had knowledge of the 
 " insolvency " of the debtor : Stecher Lithographic Co. v. Ontario Seed 
 Co. (1912), 46 S. O. R. 545, 551; Campbell v. Roache, (1891), 18 O. A. 
 R. 646 ; in others ignorance of the intent of the grantor to defraud his 
 creditors: McDonald v. Horan (1908), 12 O. W. R. 1151; Stecher 
 
364' TUE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 32 But f or a creditor to purchase at a fair value all 
 ~" the stock in trade of the debtor, setting off against 
 
 the purchase price the amount owing to him, is not to 
 act mala fide 1 . Notice of .anything wrong or of any- 
 thing that really puts a person dealing with the bank- 
 rupt upon inquiry as to the fraud which the debtor was 
 committing is sufficient to negative "good faith" 2 . 
 Where there is good faith on the part .of the grantee, 
 but not on the part of the grantor 3 , and there will be 
 no hardship on the grantee in setting aside the trans- 
 action, this may it seems be done*. 
 Transaction The transaction must "take place", that is be com- 
 ■SeTeVbefore" P^ted before the date of the receiving order or auth- 
 dateofre- orized assignment 5 . The receiving order being a judi- 
 " r cial proceeding, takes effect from the beginning of the 
 day 6 on which it was made 7 . The payment "takes 
 platoe ' ' and is complete when a cheque, bill of exchange 
 or order is given in payment, and this, even though the 
 cheque is post dated, or the bill of exchange not yet due. 
 Knowledge subsequently .acquired of an adjudication 
 will not affect the transaction 8 . The section does not 
 protect payments made after the date of the receiving 
 order; so that ja purchaser who pays the balance of 
 
 Lithographic Co. v. Ontario Seed Co , supra; and see Burns & Lewis v. 
 Wilson (i.897), 28 S. C. R. 207; Gibbons v. Wilson (1890), 17 O. A. 
 R. 1 ; Hall v. Eissoolc (1853), 11 U. C. Q. B. 9 ■; Know v Trover (1877), 
 24 Gr. 477. 
 
 1 Lewis v. Brown (1884), 10 O. A. R. 639. See, however, as to com- 
 pliance with The Bulk Sales Acts, section 3(7t). 
 
 "Per Wright, J., In re Slobodinsky ex parte Moore (1903). 2 K. B. 
 517, at 525 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 883 : 10 Mans. 341 ; and see per Cairns, Tu.C, 
 in Butcher v. Stead (1875), L. R. 7 H. L. 839, 847; 44 L. J. Bank. 
 126, a case on the section of the Act of 1869, which corresponds to sec- 
 tion 31. 
 
 8 See Mackintosh v. Pogose (1895), 1 Ch. 505; 64 Jj. J. Oh. 274; 
 2 Mans. 27. 
 
 l Sturmey's Trustee in re Sturmey (1913), 107 L. T. 718. 
 
 'Bowman v. Malcolm (1843), 12- L. J. Ex. 397; 11 M. & W. 833, 
 844 ; Brewin v. Short (1855), 24 L. J. Q. B. 297, 300. 
 
 "Per Wr'ght. J., in Ex parte and in re Pollard (1903), 2 K. B. 41, 
 45 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 509 ; 88 L. T. 476 ; 10 Mans. 152, citing In re Hast- 
 v ings ex parte Broim (1892). 61 L. J. Q. B. 654; 9 Mor. 2S4 ; and see 
 
 The Thames (1890), 63 L. T. 353, 356. 
 
 ' Not from the beginning of the day on which the order is dated, 
 where the order has been incorrectly dated : In re Teale ex parte Black- 
 burn (1912), 2 K. B. 367; 81 L. J. K. B. 1243; 19 Mans. 327, and see 
 notes to section 4. 
 
 B Ex> parte Richdale in re Palmer (1881), 19 Ch. D. 409; 51 L. J. 
 Ch. 116; Green v Bradfield (1844), 1 C. & K. 449. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 365 
 
 his purchase money to the bankrupt may he required section 32 
 to pay over again to the trustee 9 . 
 
 The English Act requires only "valuable considera- Adequate 
 tion" not "adequate valuable consideration" 10 . Pro- coS^ra- 
 vided there is some agreement between the. parties to tion - 
 make it so 1 , a past debt may be "valuable considera- 
 tion" 2 It has yet to be decided whether a different 
 rule prevails in Canada 3 . As the section is expressly 
 made subject to the provisions of the Act with re- 
 spect to the avoidance of preferences, no question 
 of preference is involved in any transaction cov- 
 ered by this section. The numerous cases on pro- 
 vincial Acts requiring a "present actual bona fide 
 advance of money" in order to support certain assign- 
 ments are of little assistance on this question 4 . When 
 bankers of a debtor place to his credit the proceeds of 
 a cheque which he has deposited they become holders 
 of the cheque for value 5 . It would seem that where 
 one of the covenants or one portion of the transaction 
 can be related to the consideration which passed, the 
 
 ' Ex parte Rabbidge in re Pooley, 8 Oh. D. 367 ; 48 L. J. Bant. 15. 
 
 10 In Sturmey's Trustee m re Sturmey (1913), 107 L. T. 718, 
 Phillimore, J., inquired whether the consideration for the transaction was 
 sufficient. 
 
 1 The mere existence of past debt is no " valuable consideration " 
 for the giving of a security when, the creditor is unaware of the execution 
 of the security : Wigan v. English and Scottish Law Life Assurance 
 Association (1909), 1 Ch. 291; In re Barker's Estate (1875), 44 L. J. 
 Ch. 487, 490; and per Vaughan Williams in Glegg v. Bromley (1912), 
 3 K. B. 474, 479; 81 L. J. K. B. 1081. 
 
 2 Ex parte Waller m re Dunkley & Son (1905), 2 K. B. 683; 74 
 L. J. K. B. 963; 12 Mans. 384; Ex parte O. R. in re Jukes (1902), 2 
 K. B. 58 ; 71 L. J. K. B. 710 ; 9 Mans. 249. As to what is 1 not valuable 
 consideration see Sturmey's Trustee in re Sturmey (1813), 107 L. T. 
 718. 
 
 2 What is a fair and reasonable value is a question of fact : Cameron 
 v. Perrm (1887), 14 O. A. R. 565, 572. 
 
 4 See Campbell v Patterson, Meader v. McKinnon (1892), 21 S. 
 C. R. 645; Empire Sash and Door Co. v. Maranda (1911), 21 M. L. R. 
 605; 19 W. L. R. 78; Ctouldmg v. Deeming (1888), 15 O. R. 201. 
 
 ' Ea> parte Richdale in re Palmer (1881), 19 Ch. D. 409; 51 L. J. 
 Ch. 116 ; a cheque is a bill of exchange payable at a banker's and not an 
 assignment of money; Hopkinson v. Forster (1874), L. R. 19 Eq. 74; 
 Schroeder v. Central Bank of London (1876) , 34 Ij. T. 735. As to tbe 
 effect of an assignment of a chose in action see Ex parte Arnold in re 
 Wright (1876), 3 Ch. D. 70; 45 L. J. Bank, 30. 
 
or 
 
 366 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 32 assignment may be sustained as to part and set aside 
 as to the other part 6 . 
 Any payment We turn now to the first of the four transactions 
 raptto- any k " mentioned in the section, ' ' any payment 'by the bank- 
 ofMs rupt or assignor to any of his creditors ' \ Under pro- 
 
 vincial Acts a distinction was made between a pay- 
 merit of money and a realization of a security. Cer- 
 tain of the cases on this distinction may be useful 
 under The Bankruptcy Act 7 . Payment by a third per- 
 son, who is in effect the agent of the bankrupt, may 
 be payment by the bankrupt within the meaning of sec- 
 tion 31 8 . 
 Any payment Payment to the bankrupt under 32(b) must be dis- 
 tL bankrupt tinguished from loan 9 . Delivery contemplates delivery 
 i- assignor. f goods 10 . Where a cheque is delivered by the drawer 
 to the payee in good faith and without notice of an act 
 of bankruptcy previously committed by the payee, on 
 which an adjudication is subsequently made, the trans- 
 action is protected and the trustee cannot recover the 
 amount of the cheque from the drawer 1 ; and where 
 before the date of payment the drawer receives notice 
 of an adjudication of bankruptcy made against the 
 payee since the delivery of the cheque to him upon 
 an act of bankruptcy committed by him before the 
 delivery, he is not bound, for the benefit of the bank- 
 
 *Sturmey's Trustee in re Sturmey (1913), 107 L. T. 718. See 
 under provincial statutes as to separability, Hunt v. Long (1916) , 35 
 O. L. R. 502; Kitching v. Hicks (1884), 6 O. R. 739; Honsinger v. 
 Kunts (1909), 14 O. W. R. 233 ; Cameron v Perrin (1888), 14 O. A. R 
 565: Douglas v Hourie (1909), 10 W. L. R. 67; Falls V. Qibb, Falls 
 v. Young (1906), 8 O. W. R. 397; Langley v Beardsley (1909), 18 O. 
 L. R. 67; Campbell v. Patterson, Mader v McKinnon (1892), 21 S. 
 O. R. 645; Gouldmg v. Deeming (1888). 15 O. R. 20; Kitching v. Hicks 
 (1884), 6 O. R. 739; Empire Sash and Door Co. v. Maranda (1911), 
 21 M. L. R. 605 ; 19 W. L. R. 78 ; Bartels, Shewan '& Co., Ltd. v. Win- 
 nipeg Cigar Co. (1909), 10 W. L. R. 263; Robinson v. Maple Leaf 
 (1917), 26 M. L. R. 238; Campbell v. McKinnon (1892), 21 S. C. R. 
 645. 
 
 7 See Gordon MacKay v. Union Bank (1899) , 26 O. A. R. 155. The 
 giving of a cheque by a debtor to his creditors is a payment, at least 
 where that creditor is his private banker: Robinson v. M^OilHvray 
 (1906), 12 O. L. R. 91; 13 O. L. R. 232, 233; 38 S. C. R. 490; 39 S. 
 C. R. 281. 
 
 'Miller v. Reid (1879), 4 O. A. R. 479. 
 
 • Wright v. Fearnley (183S) , 5 Bing. N. C. 89, 96, 97. 
 
 ™Ponsford, Baker & Co. v. Union of London (1906), 2 Oh. D. at 
 457 ; 75 L. J. Oh. 724 ; 13 Mans. 321. 
 
 1 Ex parte Richdale in re Palmer, 19 Oh. D. 409 ; 51 L. J. Oh. 116. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 367 
 
 rupt's creditors, to give notice to his bankers not to Section 32 
 pay the cheque 2 . 
 
 Of the three words "contract, dealing, or trans ac- Any contract 
 tion" in 32(d), the first is technical, the second less ^"f^ 
 technical, and the third appears to have been inserted 
 to give as large an operation as possible to any 
 arrangement made bona fid& with the bankrupt 3 . __ 
 
 "Contract, dealing, or transaction with the bank- 
 rupt" means something done by him. The words 
 do not point to a proceeding in which the bank- 
 rupt is merely passive*. A charging order being 
 a proceeding in invitum is not a "transaction" pro- 
 tected by this section 5 . A payment into a bank is a 
 "dealing" with the bankrupt, and may be protected 
 under section 32 accordingly 6 . "Where a builder con- 
 tracted with a building club to erect some houses for 
 them on f;heir own land, with a stipulation in the con- 
 tract that, if the contractor should neglect or refuse 
 to proceed with the work in a proper manner to the 
 satisfaction of the architect of the club, or become 
 bankrupt or insolvent, or otherwise rendered incapable 
 of completing the contract, the architect should have 
 power, after giving two days ' notice in writing to the 
 contractor, to appoint other persons to complete the 
 work and to provide the requisite materials, and also 
 to seize and retain all materials, plans and implements, 
 
 2 Ex parte Richdale in re Palmer, supra. 
 
 3 Per Cleasby, B., in Krehl V. Great Central Gas Co., L. R. 5 Ex. 
 289, 294 ; 39 L. J. Ex. 197 ; a transaction is very much the same 
 thing as a "dealing," per Lord Halsbury, In re 0' Shea's Settlement 
 (1895), 1 Ch. D. 325, 331 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 263 ; 2 Mans. 4 ; and see further 
 as to the meaning of dealing or transaction ; Em parte Arnold in re 
 Wright (1876), 3 Ch. D. 70; 45 L. J. Bank. 30; Stansfield v. Cuhitt 
 (1858), 27 Ij. J. Ch. 266. As to what is not a " dealing or transaction " 
 see Brexdn v. Short, 24 L. J. Q. B. 297. 
 
 *Per Lindley, L.J., In re O'Shea's Settlement (1895), 1 Ch. T>. 
 325, at 331 ; 64 L'. J. Ch. 263 ; 2 Mans. 4 ; but simile, a transaction 
 may be held to have been " with the bankrupt," although he may not 
 have been a party to every act by which it was carried out: Krehl v. 
 Great Central Gas Co* L. R. 5 Ex. 289, at 293 ; 39 L. J. Ex. 197. 
 
 'Wild v. Southwood (1897), 1 Q. B. 317; 66 L. J. Q. B. 166; 3 
 Mans. 303; In re O'Shea's Settlement (1895), 1 Ch. 325; 64 L. J. Ch. 
 263 ; 2 Mans. 4. 
 
 "Ex parte The Atcham Board of Guardians in re Diekin (1882), 
 46 L. T. 238. The giving of a cheque though it was post dated was held 
 a " dealing" : Ea> parte Richdale in re Palmer (1881) , 19 Ch. D. 409, at 
 416 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 116. 
 
368 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 33 and the contractor after carrying on the work for 
 some time filed a liquidation petition, it was held that 
 the club were entitled as against the trustee in the 
 liquidation to retain what they had seized, the seizure 
 being a protected transaction 7 . Semble, the section 
 extends to protect both express and implied contract's 
 and will therefore protect a claim to a general lien 8 . 
 
 Recovering 33. If a person in whose favour any settle- 
 rewn^eyei ment of property, conveyance or transfer 
 
 which is void under this Act has been made, 
 shall have sold, disposed of, realized on or 
 collected the property so conveyed or trans- 
 ferred, or any part thereof, the money or 
 other proceeds, whether further disposed 
 of or not, shall be deemed the property of 
 the trustee as such, who may recover such 
 property or the value thereof from the per- 
 son in whose favour such settlement of 
 property, conveyance or transfer was made 
 or from any other person to whom the per- 
 son in whose favour such settlement of 
 property, conveyance or transfer was made 
 may have resold, redisposed of or paid over 
 the proceeds of such property as fully and 
 effectually as the trustee could have 
 recovered the same if it had not been so 
 sold, disposed of, realized on or collected. 
 Provided that where any person to whom 
 such property has been sold or disposed of 
 shall have paid or given therefor in good 
 faith fair and reasonable consideration he 
 shall net be subject to the operation of this 
 section but the trustee's recourse shall be 
 solely against the person in whose favour 
 such settlement was made for recovery of 
 
 7 In re Waugh ex parte Dickm (1876), 4 Oh. D. 524; 46 L. J. 
 Bank. 26; and see-Krehl v. The Great Central Gas Co. (1870), L. R. 5 
 Ex. 289 ; 39 L. J. Ex. 197 ; contract, Ex parte Jay in re Harrison 
 (1880), 14 Ch. iD. 19. 
 
 'Bowman v. Malcolm (1843), 12 L. J. Ex. 397; 11 M. & W. 833. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. ' 369 
 
 the consideration so . paid or given or the section 33 
 value thereof; and further provided that in 
 case the consideration payable for or upon 
 any sale or resale of such property or any 
 part thereof shall remain unsatisfied the 
 trustee shall be subrogated to the rights of 
 the vendor to compel payment or satisfac- 
 tion. 
 
 Cross References Act: Settlements avoided, 29 ; conveyance or 
 transfer of property avoided, 31; power of trustee to sue, 20(1) (c), 
 16, cf. 35. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: Provincial Assignments Acts, R. S. O. 
 1914, c. 134, sec. 13 ; R. S. M. 1913, c. 12, s. 49 ; compare English Act, 
 1914, s. 44(2). 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Inconsistencies in the section. 
 
 Section only applies to three transactions void under the Act. 
 
 Rights of creditors apart from statute. 
 
 Bona fide purchasers for value protected in case of settlements. 
 
 Purchasers from fraudulently preferred creditors. 
 
 The section is modelled on provincial legislation 
 with respect to assignments and preferences. 
 
 There are two inconsistencies in the section, inconsisten- 
 Althongh the section commences with a reference to IS5,* 116 
 "any settlement of property, conveyance, or transfer" 
 it is only the proceeds of "property so conveyed or 
 transferred" which vests in the trustee. Semble, 
 there is no statutory authority for the vesting in the 
 trustee of the proceeds of settled property where the 
 settlement is void under the Act. The second incon- 
 sistency occurs in the last part of the section. In cases 
 where fair and reasonable consideration has been 
 given in good faith, the recourse of the trustee is 
 "solely against the person in whose favour such set- 
 tlement was made". No mention is made of convey- 
 ances or transfers 9 . 
 
 The proceeds can be followed by the trustee under Section only 
 the section only in cases of settlements, conveyances thre^trans- 
 or transfers void under The Bankruptcy Act. The sec- actions void 
 
 under the 
 'See Rolinson v. Wilson (1908), 12 O. W. R. 198, 768, where the Act - 
 effect of similar inconsistencies is discussed. 
 
 b.o.— 24 
 
370 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 33 tion cannot it iseems be invoked to permit the trustee 
 ~~ to follow proceeds in the case of transactions which 
 are contrary to The Bank Act 10 , or to transactions con- 
 trary to the Statutes of Elizabeth. It is thus nar- 
 rower than the corresponding provincial section which 
 extends to transactions "invalid against creditors". 
 But within these limits the right to follow the pro- 
 ceeds is not limited to a case where the assignee has 
 effected the sale 1 , but extends to cases where he has 
 realized or collected the property". 
 Rights of Apart from statute the proceeds of fraudulently 
 
 ■apartfrom acquired prop.erty could not be followed unless they 
 statute. were ear-marked 3 . Under the Statute of Elizabeth the 
 only remedy was the forfeiture of a year '•& value of the 
 lands*. No doubt creditors will continue to enjoy cer- 
 tain rights under provincial legislation. 
 Bona fide The clause in the section which purports to protect 
 
 forVaiuT 8 purchasers in good faith for fair and reasonable con- 
 case^/settie- sideration is similar to the law declared by the courts 
 ments. in construing the English counterpart of section 29, 
 
 which deals with voluntary settlements. Void in sec- 
 tion 29 has been construed as voidable 5 . The result 
 of the cases is that a bona fide purchaser for value 
 from the donee under a voluntary settlement acquires 
 a good title as against the trustee in bankruptcy, even 
 though he purchased with notice that the donee claimed 
 
 10 Conn v Smith (1897), 28 O. R. 629. 
 
 *Munro v. Standard Bank (1913) . 5 O. W. N. 508, 512. 
 
 'Honsinger v. Kuntz (1909), 14 O. W. R. 233, 238. See as to the 
 accounting for moneys collected under a preferential assignment of book 
 debts: Meharg v. Lumbers (1894), 23 O. A. R. 51. As to the question 
 whether a creditor who has obtained possession of and disposed of pro- 
 perty by means of a transaction void under the Act may set-off the 
 proceeds against his debt, see Robinson v. Wilson (1908), 12 O. W. R. 
 198, 763, in which case the creditors had the property in the goods by 
 virtue of a valid chattel mortgage which was in default. 
 
 'Tennant v. Gallow (1894), 25 O. R. 56; Robertson V. Holland, 10 
 O. A. IR. 616; flows v. Wickson (1882), 1 O. R. 369 ; Stuart v. Tremain 
 (1883), 3 O. R. 190; Masuret v. Stewart (1892), 22 O. R. 290, 300; 
 Vrqxihart v. Aird (1905) , 6 O, W. R. 155, 506 ; but see Martin v. Mo- 
 Alpine (1883), 8 0. A. R. 675; Beattie v. Holmes (1898), 29 O. R. 264. 
 
 4 Davis v. Wickson (1882), 1 O. R. 369; Tennant v. Gallow (1894), 
 25 O. R. 56. 
 
 5 In re Brail ex parte Norton (1893), 2 Q. B. 381; 62 L. J. Q. B. 
 457; 10 Mor. 166; In re Naylor eon parte Stephenson (1893). 62 L. J. 
 Q. B. 460; In re Vansittart ex parte Broton (1893), 1 Q. B. 181; 62 
 L. J. Q. B. 277 ; 9 Mor. 280. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 371 
 
 under the settlement, provided lie had not notice of any Section 3* 
 fact avoiding the settlement 6 , or of an act of bankruptcy ~ 
 committed by the settlor 7 ; and this is so even though 
 the purchase is subsequent to the date to which the title 
 of the trustee relates back 8 . Trustees of a settlement 
 originally valid which becomes void on the bankruptcy 
 of the settlor are entitled as against the trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy to a lien on the trust property for expenses 
 properly incurred in the performance of their duties as 
 trustees 9 , aliter where the trust is void 10 . 
 
 The words "Provided that where any person to Purchasers 
 whom such property has been sold or disposed of shall il^ y ™^ u ~ 
 have paid or given therefor in good faith fair and ^rred credi- 
 reasonable consideration he shall not be subject to 
 the operation of this section", appear to refer gram- 
 matically to the words, ' ' the property so conveyed or 
 transferred". Consequently purchasers in good faith 
 for reasonable consideration from creditors who have 
 obtained a fraudulent preference appear to have statu- 
 tory protection. • In the case of voluntary settlements 
 purchasers in good faith and for valuable considera- 
 tion are protected under the English Act 1 . 
 
 34 (1) All transactions by a bankrupt with Dealings 
 any person dealing with him bona fide and undischarged 
 for value, in respect of property whether bankrupt - 
 real or personal, acquired by the bankrupt 
 after the making of a receiving order shall, 
 if completed before any intervention by the 
 trustee, be valid against the trustee, and any 
 
 "In re Brail ex parte Norton (1893), supra; In re Shrager (1913), 
 108 L. T. 346. 
 
 ' In re Mart ex parte Green (1912), 3 K. B. 6 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 1213 ; 
 19 Mans. 334; In re Tankard ex parte O R. (1899), 2 Q. B. 57; 68 
 L. J. Q. B. 670 ; 6 Mans. 188. 
 
 'In re Hart ex parte Green (1912), supra; see previously In re 
 Carter & Kenderdines Contract (1897). 1 Ch. 776; 66 L. J. Ch. 408; 4 
 Mans. 34. 
 
 'In re Holden ex parte O. R. (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 43 ; 57 L. J. Q. 
 B. 47. 
 
 10 Smith v. Dresser (1866) , L. K. 1 Eq. 651 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 385. 
 
 'See In re Vansittart ex parte Brown (1893), 2 Q. B. 377; 62 L. 
 J. Q. B. 279 ; 10 Mor. 44. 
 
372 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 34 
 
 Bank must 
 
 notify 
 
 trustee. 
 
 estate or interest in such property which by 
 virtue of this Act is vested in the trustee 
 shall determine and pass in such manner 
 and to such extent as may be required for 
 giving effect to any such transaction. For 
 the purposes of this subsection, the receipt of 
 any money, security, or negotiable instru- 
 ment, from or by the order or direction of 
 a bankrupt by his banker, and any payment 
 and any delivery of any security or negoti- 
 able instrument made to, or by the order or 
 direction of a bankrupt by his banker, shall 
 be deemed to be a transaction by the bank- 
 rupt with such banker dealing with him for 
 value. 
 (2) Where a banker has ascertained that a 
 person having an account with him is an 
 undischarged bankrupt, or has made an 
 authorized assignment, then, unless the 
 banker is satisfied that the account is on 
 behalf of some other person, it shall be his 
 duty forthwith to inform the trustee in the 
 bankruptcy or authorized assignment pro- 
 ceedings of the existence of the account, 
 and thereafter he shall not make any pay- 
 ments out of the account, except under an 
 order of the court or in accordance with in- 
 structions from the trustee in the bank- 
 ruptcy, unless by the expiration of one 
 month from the date of giving the informa- 
 tion no instructions have been received from 
 the trustee. 
 
 Cross References Act: Property defined, 2(dd) ; after acquired 
 property of bankrupt, 25. 
 
 Analogous Legislation : English Act, 1914, s. 47 ; 1913, s. 11. 
 
 Analysis op Notes. 
 
 What property is included in, 34(1). 
 
 Transaction must be for value. 
 
 Disposition of after-acquired property in case of second bankruptcy. 
 
 Limitation of section 34(1). 
 
 Effect of intervention by trustee. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 373 
 
 Section 34(2) is given in the form in which it stands Section 34 
 by virtue of the amendment contained in section 56 of 
 The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921. The sec- 
 tion requires further amendment by the insertion of 
 the words "or authorized assignment proceedings" 
 between the words "bankruptcy" and "unless' in the 
 fourteenth line of the text. 
 
 Section 34 is a statutory recognition of the 
 decision of the Court of Appeal in the leading case of 
 Cohen v. Mitchell 2 . Cohen v. Mitchell decided that un- 
 til the trustee intervenes, all transactions by an undis- 
 charged bankrupt after his bankruptcy, with any per- 
 son dealing with him bona fide and for value in respect 
 of his after-acquired property, whether with or with- 
 out knowledge of the bankruptcy, are valid against the 
 trustee. The phrase "whether with or without know- 
 ledge of the bankruptcy" does not appear in section 
 34(1), but it is considered that the law as it existed 
 under Cohen v. Mitchell and previous thereto 3 , has not 
 been altered. The bona fides required by the sec- 
 tion has reference only to the conduct of the person 
 dealing with the bankrupt. If he has dealt in good 
 faith the question of whether the bankrupt as between 
 himself and the creditors is also dealing in good faith 
 is immaterial 4 , for there is no obligation on persons 
 dealing with an undischarged bankrupt to go to the 
 trustee and make enquiries 5 . Thus an undischarged 
 bankrupt may on his second marriage make a settle- 
 ment of a chose m action which has fallen to him dur- 
 ing bankruptcy, even where the trustees of the chose 
 in action have knowledge of the bankruptcy 6 ; for in 
 such a case knowledge on the part of the trustees of the 
 chose in action does not make them trustees for the 
 trustee in bankruptcy 7 . 
 
 2 (1890) , 25 Q. B. D. 262 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 409 ; 7 Mor. 207 ; see Hill 
 v. Settle (1917), 1 Ch. 319 : 86 L. J. Ch. 243 ; 3 H. B. R. 23. 
 
 8 See Ex parte Dewhurst in re Vanlohe (1871), L. R. 7 Ch. 185; 
 41 L. J. Bank. 18. 
 
 1 Hunt v. Fripp (1898) , 1 Ch. 675 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 377 : 5 Mans. 105. 
 
 'Hunt v. Fripp, supra; In re Bennett ex parte 0. R. (1907), 1 K. 
 B. 149 ; see, however, In re Clark ex parte Kearley (1889), 6 Mor. 42. 
 
 'In re BehreniTs Trust (1911), 1 Ch. 687; 80 L. J. Ch. 394; 18 
 Mans. 111. 
 
 'S. C. 
 
37* 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 34 
 
 What pro- 
 perty in- 
 cludes in 
 34(1). 
 
 Transaction 
 must be for 
 value. 
 
 Although the Avording of the rule in Cohen v. 
 Mitchell was wide enough to include all property real 
 or personal, it was decided in In re New Land Develop- 
 ment Association and Gray*, that the property of the 
 bankrupt therein referred to did not include real 
 estate . Section 34(1), however, puts both real and 
 personal after-acquired property on the same foot- 
 ing. It applies to after-acquired leaseholds 10 , to a 
 legacy and a share of a residue under a will 1 ; and to 
 a chose in action 2 . 
 
 The transaction to he protected must he for value 3 . 
 A third party who completes a contract into which 
 the bankrupt had entered as purchaser and pays the 
 purchase money and receives a deed in the name of the 
 bankrupt, is entitled as against the trustee to a charge 
 on the land to the extent of the money so paid'. A 
 bankrupt who unknown to the trustee, carries on busi- 
 ness and acquires property is not, when the trustee 
 takes possession of the property, entitled to claim that 
 he had acted as agent for the trustee and to demand 
 an indemnity. But as to whether there is complete 
 immunity of the trustee from all liability in respect 
 of honest claims made in such case qucere 6 . A charging 
 order or other process in invitum is not a transaction 
 for value within this section, and is therefore invalid 
 as against the trustee". A mortgagee of the bankrupt's 
 share in a business is not a purchaser for value within 
 section 34(1), merely because the business has con- 
 
 ° (1892), 2 Ch. 138; 61 L. J. Ch. 495. 
 
 "See also 0. R. v. .Cooke (1906), 2 Oh. 661; 75 L. J. Ch. 757; 13 
 Mans. 337 ; In re Kent Co. Gas Co. (1909) . 2 Ch. 195 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 625 ; 
 16 Mans. 185; London and County Contracts Go. v. TaUack (1903), 19 
 T. L. R. 156 ; 51 W. R. 408. 
 
 10 In re Clayton & Barclay's Contract (1895), 2 Oh. 212; 64 L. J. 
 Ch. 615 ; 2 Mans. 345. 
 
 1 Hunt v. Fripp, supra. 
 
 2 In re Behrend's Trust, supra. After-acquired property should be 
 distinguished from the proceeds of personal labour : see Wadling v. 
 Oliphant (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 145; 45 L. J. Bank. 173; In re Dowling 
 ex parte Banks, 4 Ch. D. 689 ; 46 L. J. Bank. 74, and see notes to section 
 25 under the side-note " personal earnings." 
 
 3 In re Bennett ex parte 0. R. (1907), 1 K. B. 149; 76 L. J. K. B. 
 134 ; 14 Mans. 6. 
 
 4 Bird v. Philpott (1900) , 1 Oh. 822 ; 69 L. J. Oh. 487 ; 7 Mans. 251. 
 °7» re Clark ex parte Kearley (1889), 6 Mor. 42*. 
 
 "Hosack v. Rolins (1918), 2 Ch. 339. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 375 
 
 firmed after the bankruptcy to have the benefit of a Section 34 
 loan made prior to the bankrupty 7 . 
 
 Property acquired by an undischarged bankrupt Disposition 
 in a business carried on by him after his bankruptcy °^? r f ^ r p a r c "_ 
 without the knowledge of the trustee will in the event party in case 
 of a second adjudication vest in the trustee under the bankruptcy, 
 first bankruptcy and) not in the trustee under the 
 second bankruptcy, for he is not a person dealing with 
 the bankrupt for value 8 . The first trustee in claiming 
 the profits of the business is not required to take with 
 them the burden of the liabilities 9 . 
 
 It has been held that section 34(1) relates to cases Limitation 
 in which the bankrupt is carrying on a business with- 34(i) ectl0n 
 out any interference by the trustee, and is meant to 
 protect persons who deal with him in the ordinary way. 
 It does not protect a creditor who receives money from 
 the debtor, which he had obtained in an irregular way 10 . 
 However that may be it is clear that this section 
 embodies a principle quite distinct from that of estop- 
 pel, such as occurs when the trustee allows the bank- 
 rupt to continue to deal with his property knowing that 
 those dealing with the bankrupt are doing so relying 
 on the fact of his apparent ownership 1 . 
 
 Reading section 34(1) with sections 25 and 6(3), it Effectof 
 would appear that after-acquired property vests in by trus?ee° n 
 the trustee in only a qualified sense. It is only when 
 the trustee has intervened that it vests indef easibly in 
 him. Once he has intervened he cannot withdraw his 
 intervention so as to divest the property from himself 
 and revest it in the bankrupt 2 . 
 
 7 In re Rogers ex parte Collins (1894), 1 Q. B. 425, 432; 63 L. J. 
 Q. B. 178; 1 Mans. 387. 
 
 "/» re Clark ex parte Beardmvre (1894), 2 Q. B. 393; 63 L. J. 
 Q. B. 806 ; 1 Mans. 207 ; and see in the case of insurance moneys In re 
 Phillips ex parte 0. R. (1914), 2 K. B. 689; 83 L. J. K. B. 1316; 21 
 Mans. 144. 
 
 'In re Clark ex parte Beardmore (1894), 2 Q. B. 393; 63 L. J. 
 Q. B. 806 ; 1 Mans. 207 ; but see per Cave, J., in In re Clarke ex parte 
 Kearley (1889), 6 Mor. 42. 
 
 10 In re Rogers ex varte Woodthorpe (1891), S Mor. 236. 
 
 1 See notes to sect'on 21. and see Es> parte Cooper in re Green 
 (1878) . 39 L. T. 260, where the Chief Judge said there was no laches 
 on the part of the trustee. 
 
 2 Bill v. Settle (1917), 1 Ch. 319. 
 
376 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 35 
 
 Proceedings 
 by creditor 
 when trustee 
 refuses to 
 act. 
 
 35. If at any time a creditor desires to cause 
 any proceeding to be taken which, in his 
 opinion, would be for the benefit of the 
 bankrupt's or authorized assignor's estate, 
 and the trustee, under the direction of .the 
 creditors or inspectors, refuses or neglects 
 to take such proceeding after being duly 
 required to do so, the creditor may, as'of 
 right, obtain from the court an order autho- 
 rizing him to take proceedings in the name 
 of the trustee, but at his own expense and 
 risk, upon such terms and conditions as to 
 indemnity to the trustee as the court may 
 prescribe, and thereupon any benefit derived 
 from the proceedings shall, to the extent of 
 his claim and full costs, belong exclusively to 
 the creditor instituting the same; but if, be- 
 fore such order is granted, the trustee shall, 
 with the approval of the inspectors, signify 
 to the court his readiness to institute the 
 proceedings for, the benefit of the creditors, 
 the order shall prescribe the time within 
 which he shall do so, arid in that case the 
 advantage derived from the proceedings, if 
 instituted within such time, shall belong to 
 the estate. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Matters to 'be heard in chambers, 4; 
 application by motion, 14 ; rules with respect to motions, 15-19. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: Canadian Acts, 1875, s. 68 ; 1869, s. 45 ; 
 The Ontario Assignments Act, 1914,- s. 12(2) ; It. S. M. 1913, c. 12, 
 s. 48(2). 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Parties. 
 
 Relief obtainable. 
 Order and indemnity. 
 Claim and full costs. 
 Sale under order of court. 
 
 This section, which has no counterpart in the 
 English Bankruptcy Act, had its origin in the earlier 
 Canadian insolvency legislation and has been copie3 
 into Provincial Assignments Acts. The courts of 
 bankruptcy in England have without any such statu- 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 377 
 
 tory provision allowed proceedings to be taken by a section 35 
 particular creditor in tbe name of tbe assignee for tbe ~ 
 benefit of tbe creditors generally 3 upon a proper in- 
 demnity being furnished*, .but in (England, and in 
 winding-up cases which do not proceed under The 
 Bankruptcy Act, there is no provision permitting a 
 creditor to appropriate the fruits of the litigation in 
 satisfaction of his claim 5 . Under the Ontario Act, a 
 creditor may sue in the name of the assignee and with 
 his consent without any order of the court ; but in such 
 case the recovery will be for the benefit of the estate 6 . 
 
 In an action by an assignee for the benefit of credi- parties, 
 tors against a creditor to set aside a preferential 
 transfer or a fraudulent conveyance, it has been held 
 that the debtor is not a proper party 7 , all his rights to 
 the property having vested in the assignee 8 . It has 
 been held that where proceedings are taken under such 
 a section by a creditor on behalf of himself and all 
 those who within a limited time shall come in and con- 
 tribute to the risk and expense of an action to set aside 
 a security held by another creditor, the latter may, 
 while defending his security, join with the attacking 
 
 * Ex parte Cooper in re Zucco (1875) , 10 Ch. 510 ; 44 L. J. Bank. 
 121; Wilmott v. London Celluloid Co. (1886), 34 Ch. D. 147; 56 L. J. 
 Ch. 89. 
 
 *In re Elston ex parte Ryland (1832), 2 D. & C. 392, and see 
 Seear v. Lawson (1886) , 15 Ch. D. 426 ; 49 L. J. Bank. 69 ; Guy v. 
 Churchill (1888), 40 Ch. D. 481; 58 L. J. Ch. 345. 
 
 "Ex parte Cooper in re Zucco, supra; Wilmott v. London Celluloid 
 Go,, supra. 
 
 'Doull v. Eopman (1895), 22 O. A. R. 447; MacDonald v. McCall 
 (1885), 12 0. A. R. 593; 13 S. C. R. 247. As to the right of simple 
 contract creditors to sue see MacDonald v. McCall, supra; Meriden 
 Britannia Co. v. Braden (1894), 21 O. A. R. 352. Before The Judica- 
 ture Act a creditor had to resort both to Chancery and Common Law 
 Courts in order to obtain his complete remedy. He had first to main- 
 tain a suit in equity to have the fraudulent conveyance declared void 
 under the statute of Elizabeth. On obtaining a decree he was compelled 
 to resort to a court of law for legal execution. If he required equitable 
 execution he had again to resort to the Court of Chancery by means of 
 a fresh suit in that court : MacDonald v. McCall, supra. 
 
 * Beattie v. Wenger (1897) , 24 O. A. R. 72. 
 
 'Crawford v. Magee (1905), 6 O. W. R. 44, but see Allen v. Bank 
 of Ottawa (1908) , 11 O. W. R. 148. It is not. it seems, proper for a 
 simple contract creditor to bring an action against an alleged fraudulent 
 grantee alone, claiming merely to set aside the conveyance ; the debtor 
 and grantor should also be a -party : Giooons v Darvill (1888), 12 P. R. 
 478; Urq-uhart v. Aird (1905). 6 O. W. R. 155, 506; Kuntz Brewery v. 
 Grant (1911), 3 O. W. N. 237. 
 
378 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Relief 
 obtainable, 
 
 Section 35 creditor in indemnifying the assignee, so that in the 
 event of his failing to retain his security he may par- 
 ticipate in the fruits of the litigation 9 . A creditor 
 suing in the name of the trustee is dominus litis and 
 can make any compromise he chooses with the defend- 
 ants. 
 
 Under The Bankruptcy Act the trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy has a statutory title which relates back 1 , and 
 transactions which take place within the period cov- 
 ered by the relation back of the title of the trustee can 
 be impeached if they are not protected by section 32. 
 The rights of a creditor suing in the name of the trus- 
 tee are not affected by acts done before action by the 
 trustee in his personal capacity 2 , or in another right 3 . 
 A trustee, and therefore a creditor suing in the name 
 of the trustee, is not estopped from seeking to have a 
 conveyance avoided as in fraud of creditors by reason 
 of the fact that before the proceedings in insolvency 
 have begun certain creditors suing on behalf of them- 
 selves and such other creditors as might contribute 
 to the expenses of the suit had failed in a similar ac- 
 tion 4 . If there is a valid and honest release or com- 
 promise of a right of action by the trustee, it will work 
 a disqualification of any right of action in the trustee's 
 name 5 , and the action of the trustee and inspectors in 
 effecting a compromise under the Act will bind a dis- 
 sentient creditor unless he takes direct steps to impeach 
 it for some satisfactory reason 6 , which he cannot do 
 unless the defendant can be restored to his original 
 position 7 ; for a compromise which may be impeached 
 for fraud is not void but voidable only at the option of 
 the party injured. If the defendant cannot be restored 
 to his original position, the compromise cannot be 
 
 "Barber v. Crathem (1897), 28 O. R. 615. 
 
 ™Per Burton, J.A.. in Donovan v. Herbert (1885), 12 O. A. K. 298, 
 308. 
 
 'See sections 6(3), 25 and 4(10). As to the position of the trustee 
 generally, see Chapter VI. 
 
 2 McTavisk v. Rogers (1896), 23 O. A. R. 17. 
 
 3 Glass v. Grant (1888), 16 O. R. 233. 
 
 * Smith v. Doyle (1879), 4 O. A. R. 471. 
 
 6 Keyes v. Kirlcpatrick (1890), 19 O. R. 572. 
 
 "S. C. and per Hagarty, C.J.O., in Campbell v. Holly (1895), 22 
 0. A. R. 217. 
 
 ' Campbell v. Hally (1895), 22 O. A. R. 217. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 379 
 
 rescinded and the party defrauded is left to his action section 35 
 of deceit 8 . The section applies to cases in which there _ " 
 is an impeachable transaction alleged to be made in 
 fraud of creditors 9 . A creditor may after execution 
 of a release by him in consideration of payment of a 
 composition bring an action in the assignee's name to 
 recover goods fraudulently concealed by the assignor 
 at the time of the assignment 10 . The action brought 
 must be such as is justified by the scope of the order 1 . 
 
 The trustee should not appeal from the order Order and 
 authorizing the creditor to take proceedings 2 . In a mdemn,t y- 
 case under the Ontario Act, where the creditor had 
 indemnified the assignee, who stated that he was* a 
 resident of Winnipeg and not in a position to pay and 
 did not intend to pay costs, and it appeared likely that 
 the assignee would not facilitate the proceedings, he 
 was directed to assign to the defendant the security 
 which he had from the creditor 3 . 
 
 A creditor may not benefit by the proceedings Claim and 
 beyond his claim and full costs*. After the creditor ful1 costs " 
 has obtained the order of the court authorizing him to 
 take proceedings he may not by acquiring the claims 
 of other creditors increase the amount he can recover 5 . 
 Semble, the full costs allowed to a creditor include 
 solicitor and client costs 6 . Where a creditor suing 
 under the Statute of Elizabeth obtained a judgment 
 setting aside as fraudulent a first mortgage, thereby 
 improving the position of the second mortgagee, he was 
 given a first charge on the fund recovered as in the 
 nature of salvage for his solicitor and client costs and 
 
 8 Per Osier, J., in Campbell v. Hatty, supra. 
 
 'Per Burton, C.J.O., in Small v. Henderson (1899), 27 O. A. K. 
 492. 
 
 "Doull v. Eopman (1895), 22 O. A. R. 447. 
 
 1 Campbell v. Hatty (1895), 22 O. A. R. 217. A form of order is 
 given in Barler v. Crathern (1897) . 28 O. R. 615.. 
 
 2 In re Lamb (1867), 13 Grant 391. 
 
 ' SHU v. Lougheed (1912), 3 O. W. N. 647. 
 
 4 The amendment to this effect in the Ontario Act followed the deci- 
 sion in McTavish v. Rogers (1896), 23 O. A. R. 17. 
 
 "McTavish v. Rogers (1896), 23 O. A. R. 17. 
 
 'See MacDonald v. AfcCaH, (1887), 12 P. R. 9, where party and 
 party costs were given as against the defendant and also solicitor and 
 client costs 1 to be paid out of the fund. 
 
380 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 36 such, of his party and party costs as might not be 
 realized from the defendant 7 . 
 
 Where a creditor proceeding under this section 
 has obtained a declaration that the transaction attacked 
 is fraudulent and void, and the trustee is directed by 
 the court to sell the lands, such sale does not require 
 the consent in writing, under section' 20(1) (a), of the 
 inspectors 8 . 
 
 Sale under 
 order of 
 court. 
 
 Insolvent 
 corporations. 
 
 Contributory 
 shareholders. 
 
 Almount pay- 
 able to 
 trustee. 
 
 Liability on 
 transferred 
 shares. 
 
 Contrioutories to Insolvent Corporations. 
 
 36 (1) This section shall apply only to cor- 
 porations which have become bankrupt or 
 authorized assignors under this Act. 
 
 (2) Every shareholder or member of a cor- 
 poration or his representative shall be liable 
 to contribute the amount unpaid on his 
 shares of the capital or on his liability to 
 the corporation or to its members or credi- 
 tors, as the case may be, under the Act, 
 charter or instrument of incorporation of 
 the company or otherwise ; such shareholder 
 or member will hereinafter be referred to as 
 the ''contributory." 
 
 (3) The amount which the contributory is 
 liable to contribute shall be deemed an asset 
 of the corporation and a debt payable to the 
 trustee forthwith upon the making of a 
 receiving order against the corporation or 
 on the execution by the corporation of an 
 authorized assignment. 
 
 (4) If a shareholder has transferred his shares 
 under circumstances which do not, by law, 
 free him from liability in respect thereof, 
 or if he is by law liable to the corporation 
 or to its members or creditors, as the case 
 may be, to an amount beyond the amount 
 unpaid on his shares, he shall be deemed a 
 member of the corporation for the purposes 
 
 ' Coursolles v. Fookes (1889), 16 0- E. 691. 
 
 'Herbert v. Donovan (1885), CoutlSe S. C. Dig. 1434, affirming 
 Donovan v. Herbert (1885), 12 O. A. It. 298. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 381 
 
 of this Act and shall be liable to contribute section se 
 as aforesaid to the extent of his liabilities to ~ 
 the corporation or its members or creditors 
 independently of this Act. t 
 
 (5) The amount which he is so liable to eon- Payable to 
 tribute shall be deemed an asset and a debt trustee - 
 as aforesaid. 
 
 (6) The trustee may from time to time make Demand on 
 demand on any contributory requiring him ^tru^tee!^ 
 to pay to the trustee within thirty days from 
 
 and. after the date of the service of such 
 demand, the amount for which such person 
 is so liable to contribute or such portion 
 thereof as the trustee deems necessary or 
 expedient. Any such demand shall be 
 deemed to have been properly served if 
 delivered personally to the contributory or 
 if a copy of the same is mailed in a registered 
 prepaid letter addressed to the contribu- 
 tory at his last known address or at the 
 address shown in or by the stock register or 
 other books of the corporation. 
 
 (7) If the contributory disputes liability, N° tice ° £ 
 either in whole or in part, he shall within liawiity. 
 fifteen days from the service of such demand 
 
 give notice in writing to the trustee stating 
 therein what portion of the demand is dis- 
 puted and setting out his grounds of defence 
 and he shall not thereafter, unless by leave 
 of the court, be permitted to plead in any 
 action or proceeding brought against him 
 by the trustee any grounds of defence of. 
 which he has not notified the trustee within 
 said fifteen days. 
 
 (8) If at the expiration of thirty days from the Recovery . 
 date of the service of such demand the con- 
 tributory has not paid to the trustee the 
 required amount, the trustee may take pro- 
 ceedings against the contributory for the 
 recovery thereof in the manner provided by 
 General Rules. 
 
383 
 
 Section 36 
 
 Excessive 
 or unjust 
 demand. 
 
 Order of 
 court. 
 
 Adjustment 
 of rights of 
 con tribu- 
 taries. 
 
 Court may 
 allow re- 
 muneration, 
 expenses and 
 costs as 
 against 
 contribu- 
 tories. 
 
 Security for 
 remunera- 
 tion, 
 expenses 
 and costs. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 (9) If the contributory considers the demand 
 excessive or unjust he may apply to the 
 court to reduce or disallow it. 
 
 (10) If the court considers the demand to be 
 grossly excessive or unjust it may order the 
 trustee to pay personally the costs of any 
 such application. 
 
 (11) The court shall, on the application of any 
 contributory, adjust the rights of the contri- 
 butories among themselves, and, for the pur- 
 pose of facilitating such adjustment may 
 direct the trustee to intervene, carry the pro- 
 ceedings, employ legal or other assistance 
 and make such investigations, do such acts 
 and furnish such information as to the court 
 may seem necessary or advisable. 
 
 (12) The court shall allow to the trustee and to 
 any solicitor, advocate or counsel or other 
 assistant employed by him under the provi- 
 sions of the immediately preceding subsec- 
 tion, as against the contributories or any 
 of them, such remuneration, expenses and 
 costs as the court shall deem just, and such 
 remuneration, expenses and costs shall be 
 paid out of such moneys as shall be collected 
 from contributories under the order or direc- 
 tion of the court for the purposes of the 
 adjustment or out of moneys payable to the 
 contributories by the estate of the debtor, as 
 the court shall order, but such remuneration, 
 expenses and costs shall not be payable in 
 any event out of the general estate of the 
 debtor. 
 
 (13) The Court, before proceeding to adjust 
 the rights of contributories among them- 
 selves as by subsection eleven of this section 
 provided, may order that the contributory 
 applying shall provide security, in form and 
 amount satisfactory to the court, for the 
 payment of such remuneration, expenses and 
 costs as will be incident to such adjustment, 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 383 
 
 and, in default of such security being pro- section se 
 vided as and when ordered, the court may- 
 refuse to proceed with such adjustment. 
 
 Cross References Act: As to corporations which come under the 
 Act see 2(fc), 2(o), 2(ao) ; computation of time, 82; service by mail, 
 83 ; set-off, 28. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Contributories to insolvent corpora- 
 tions, 122 to 130. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Demand by trustee on contributory 
 under section 36(6), Form 37; application of trustee for judgment 
 against contributor's, 38 ; application of contributory to adjust rights 
 of contributories, 39 ; affidavit in support of application to adjust rights 
 of contributories, 40. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: 36(2) (3) (5). See Dominion Winding- 
 up Act. R. S. C. 1906, c. 144, s. 51; 36(4), see Dominion Winding-up 
 Act, R. S. C. 1914, c. 144, 5 . 52 ; 36(11) ; see Dominion Winding-up Act, 
 R. S. C. 1914, c. 144, s. 60. 
 
 Section 36(3) is in the form in which it has been left 
 by the amendment made by section 57 of The Bank- 
 ruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921. Section 36(8) is in 
 the form in which it was enacted by section 9 of The 
 Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1920 9 . Section 36(11) 
 is in the form in which it was enacted by section 27 of 
 The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921 10 . Sections 
 36(12) (13) were first enacted by section 28 of The 
 Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921. 
 
 Sub-sections 36(6) to ■36(10) are machinery de- 
 signed to replace the practice of settling the list of 
 contributories before the Master. The whole section 
 and Rules 122 to 130 have been drafted with a view 
 to avoiding the costs and expense involved in proceed- 
 ing under The Winding-up Act. Until the practice 
 under the Act has been settled by judicial decision it 
 has been decided to refer the practitioner to the. lead- 
 ing works on Company Law for a discussion of the 
 
 8 The previous section read : 
 
 36. (8) If at the expiration of thirty days from the date of the 
 service of such demand the contributory has not paid to the trustee the 
 required amount, the trustee may, with the approval of the inspectors 
 of the estate, institute in a court having jurisdiction in debt to such 
 amount, an action or other proceeding for the recovery thereof. 
 10 The previous section read : 
 
 36. (11) The court shall, on the application of any contributory, 
 adjust the rights of the contributories among themselves without the 
 intervention of the trustee and without expense to the estate. 
 
384 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 37 questions involved in the subject of contributories. 
 ~~" The eases on sections 51, 52 and 60 of The Winding-up 
 Act, which correspond with sections 36(2) to 36(5), 
 will be found in those works. 
 
 Trustee to 
 pay dividends 
 promptly. 
 
 Abstract 
 of receipts 
 and disburse- 
 ments. 
 
 Dividends. i 
 
 37 (1) Subject to the retention of such sums 
 as may be necessary for the costs of adminis- 
 tration or otherwise, the trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy or in authorized assignment proceed- 
 ings shall, with all convenient speed, declare 
 and distribute dividends amongst the credi- 
 tors who have proved their debts. Such 
 dividend as can be paid shall be so paid 
 within six months from the date of ' the 
 receiving order or assignment, and earlier, 
 if required by the inspectors. Thereafter 
 a further dividend shall be paid whenever the 
 trustee has sufficient moneys on hand to pay 
 to the creditors ten per cent., and more fre- 
 quently if required by the inspectors, until 
 the estate is wound up and disposed of. 
 
 (2) So soon as a final dividend sheet is pre- 
 pared the trustee shall send by mail to every 
 creditor (1) a notice of the fact, (2) an 
 abstract of his receipts and expenditures as 
 trustee, which abstract shall indicate what 
 amount of interest has been received by the 
 trustee for moneys in his hands, and (3) a 
 copy of the dividend sheet with notice 
 thereon (a) of the claims objected to and 
 (6) whether any reservation has been made 
 therefor. After the expiry of fifteen days 
 from the date of the mailing of the last of 
 said notices, abstracts and dividend sheets, 
 dividends on all debts not objected to up to 
 the time of payment shall be paid. 
 
 (3) Any creditor who has not proved his debt 
 before the declaration of any dividend or 
 dividends shall be entitled upon proof of 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 385 
 
 such debt to be paid out of any money for section 37 
 the time being in the hands of the trustee mgu ot 
 any dividend or dividends he may have £5^°* not 
 'failed to receive, before that money is f££J r ^ debt 
 applied to the payment of any future divi- declaration, 
 dend or dividends, but he shall not be en- 
 titled to disturb the distribution of any 
 dividend declared before his debt was proved 
 by reason that he has not participated 
 therein. 
 
 (4) Where one partner of a firm is adjudged Dividends 
 bankrupt, or makes an authorized assign- p^op e erty a of 
 ment, a creditor to whom the bankrupt is'^ n ^" r pt 
 indebted jointly with the other partners of 
 
 the firm, or any of them, shall not receive 
 any dividend out of the separate property 
 of the bankrupt or authorized assignor until 
 all the separate creditors have received the 
 full amount of their respective debts. 
 
 (5) Where joint and separate properties are Dividends 
 being administered, dividends of the joint ° n p J a °™^ and 
 and separate properties shall, on the appli properties, 
 cation of any person interested, be declared 
 together, and the expenses of and incident 
 
 to such dividends shall be fairly apportioned 
 by the trustee between the joint and separ- 
 ate properties, regard being had to work 
 done for and the benefit received by each 
 property. 
 
 (6) The trustee may, at any time after the first Notice that 
 meeting of creditors, give notice by regis- prOTedVithin 
 tered mail prepaid to every person of whose l^fS or 
 claim to be a creditor with a provable debt*?*^ . 
 the trustee has notice or knowledge, but be made. W1 
 whose said debt has not been proved, that if 
 
 such person does not prove his debt within a 
 period limited by the notice and expiring not 
 sooner than thirty days after the mailing of 
 the notice the trustee will proceed to make a 
 dividend or final dividend without regard to 
 
 b.c.^25 
 
386 
 Section 37 
 
 Court may 
 extend time. 
 
 Final 
 
 dividend and 
 division of 
 estate. 
 
 Distribution 
 of estate of 
 bankrupt 
 after notice. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 such person's claim. If any person so noti- 
 fied does not prove his debt within the time 
 limited or within such further time as the 
 court, upon proof of merits and satisfactory 
 explanation of the delay in making 'proof, 
 may allow, the claim of such person shall, 
 notwithstanding anything in this Act, be ex- 
 cluded from all share in any dividend. 
 
 (7) -The trustee having (a) gazetted and pub- 
 lished as required by section eleven, subsec- 
 tion four, and (&) mailed as required by 
 section forty-two, subsection two, and (c) 
 realized all the property of the bankrupt or 
 authorized assignor or all thereof that can, 
 in the joint opinion of himself and of the in- 
 spectors, be realized without needlessly pro- 
 tracting the trusteeship, and (d) settled or 
 determined or caused to be settled or 
 determined the claims of all creditors to 
 rank against the estate of the debtor, shall 
 make a final dividend and be at liberty sub- 
 ject to the various provisions of this Act, to 
 divide the property of the debtor among the 
 creditors who have proved their debts with- 
 out regard to the claims of any other 
 claimants. 
 
 (8) The trustee shall, not later than six months 
 after he is at liberty pursuant to the provi- 
 sions of this section to distribute the pro- 
 ceeds of the estate of the bankrupt or 
 assignor, pay to the Receiver-General of 
 Canada all declared but unpaid dividends 
 remaining in his hands, and shall at the 
 same time provide a list of the names and 
 post office addresses, so far as known, of 
 the creditors entitled, showing the respective 
 amounts payable to the respective creditors. 
 The Receiver-General shall, thereafter, 
 upon application made, pay to any unpaid 
 creditor his proper dividends as shown on 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 38? 
 
 this list, and such payment shall have effect section 37 
 
 as if made by the trustee. 
 
 (9) No action for a dividend shall lie against No action 
 the trustee but if the trustee refuses to pay fordlvidend - 
 any dividend, the court may, if it thinks fit, 
 
 order him to pay it, and also to pay out of 
 his own money interest thereon for the time 
 that it is withheld and the costs >of the appli- 
 cation. 
 
 (10) Notwithstanding the declaration of a final Dividend 
 
 V • j i ■/. 1 j 'n i- after final 
 
 dividend 11 any assets reserved tor contm- dividend, 
 gent claims, or assets subsequently received, 
 become available for the payment of a fur- 
 ther dividend and the necessary expenses of 
 declaring the same, the trustee shall declare 
 and pay such further dividend. 
 
 Cross References Act: Division of property among creditors, 
 20(i) (/) ; dividend sheet and abstract of receipts and expenditures to 
 be forwarded to Ottawa, 24(2) (c) ; debts provable, 44; proof of debts, 
 45, 46; ranking of claims where different estates, 28(2) ; applicability 
 of assets where different estates, 51(3) ; retention of sums necessary for 
 the costs of administration, 51(2) ; costs, charges and expenses of pro- 
 ceedings, 38 ; remuneration and disbursements of trustee, 40 ; fees and 
 expenses of trustee, 51(1) ; penalty where trustee fails to perform any 
 act or duty under the Act, 96(c) ; computation of time, 82. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Notice to persons claiming to be 
 creditors of intention to declare final dividend and requiring them to 
 establish Claim 41. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: 37(1) (2), English Act, 1914, s. 62; 
 37 ( (3), English Act, 1914, s. 65; Ontario Ass : gnments Act 1914, g. 33; 
 37(4) (5), English Act, 1914, s. 63(1) (2) ; 37(6) (7), English Act, 
 1914, s 67(1) (2) ; 37(8), Manitoba Assignments Act, 1913, s. 62, as 
 amended 1919, c. 7; 37(9), English Act, 1914, s. 68. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Payment to. creditors who have proved. 
 
 Dividend not liable to be attached. 
 
 The pooling of assets in Canada and abroad. 
 
 Notice of dividends, etc. 
 
 Joint and- separate properties. 
 
 No action for dividend. 
 
 Section 37(3) is in the form in which it has been 
 put by section 29 of The Bankruptcy Act Amendment 
 Act of 1921, which inserted the words "upon proof of 
 such debt" now appearing in the third and fourth 
 lines of section 37(3) as given in the above text. Sec- 
 
388 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 37 tions 37(6) and 37(7) are in the form in which they 
 were enacted by sections 30 and 31 of The Bankruptcy 
 Act Amendment Act, 1921. Section 32 of The Bank- 
 ruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921, deleted the first 15 
 lines and the 16th line to and including the word 
 "thereof" of section 37(8), as enacted by section 10 of 
 The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act of 1920 10 . Section 
 37(10) was first enacted by section 58 of The Bank- 
 ruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921. 
 
 "Sections 37(6) and 37(7) formerly read: 
 
 37. (6) When the trustee has realized all the property of the 
 bankrupt, or authorized assignor, or so much thereof as can, in the joint 
 opinion of himself and of the inspectors, be realized without needlessly 
 protracting the trusteeship, he shall declare a final dividend, but before 
 so doing he shall give notice by registered prepaid letter posted to the 
 persons whose claims to be creditors have been notified to him, but not 
 established to his satisfaction, that if they do not establish their claims 
 to the satisfaction of the court within a time limited by the notice 
 (which shall be within thirty days after the mailing or service of the 
 notice), he will proceed to" make a final dividend without regard to their 
 claims. 
 
 37. (7) After the expiration of the time so limited, or, if the court 
 on application by any such claimant grants him further time for 
 establishing his claim, then on .the expiration of such further time, the 
 property of the bankrupt, or authorized assignor, shall be divided among 
 the creditors who have proved their debts, without regard to the claims 
 of any other persons. 
 
 Section 37(8) as enacted by The Bankruptcy Act, 1919, read: 
 
 37. (8) Where a trustee has published the notice in the form and in 
 the manner provided by section eleven, subsection four, of this Act and 
 has mailed, prepaid and registered a copy of such notice to each credi- 
 tor of the bankrupt or assignor of wliom he has notice or knowledge, 
 such trustee shall at the expiration of thirty days from the date of 
 the mailing of the last of the said notices or from the date of last 
 publication (whichever date should last occur) be at liberty to distribute 
 the proceeds of the estate of the bankrupt or assignor among the parties 
 entitled thereto, having regard only to the claims of which the trustee 
 has then notice, and shall not be liable for the proceeds of the estate 
 or assets or any part thereof so distributed to any person of whose claim 
 the trustee had not notice at the time of the distribution thereof. The 
 trustee shall, not later than six months after he is at liberty pursuant 
 to the provisions of this section to distribute the proceeds of the estate 
 of the bankrupt or ass'gnor, pay to the Receiver-General of Canada all 
 declared but unpaid dividends remaining in his hands, find shall at the 
 same time provide a list of the names and post office addresses so far as 
 known, of the creditors entitled, showing the respective amounts pay- 
 able to the respective creditors. The Receiver-General shall, thereafter, 
 upon appl : cation made, pay to any unpaid creditor his proper dividend 
 as shown on such list, and such payment shall have effect as if made by 
 the trustee. 
 
 This section was repealed by section 10 of The Bankruptcy Act 
 Amendment Art, 1920, and the following substituted therefor: 
 
 37. (8) Where a trustee has published the notice in the form and 
 in the manner provided by section eleven, sub-section four of this Act, 
 and has mailed prepaid and registered a circular to eaoh creditor of the 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 389 
 
 The provisions of section 37 are unfortunately not Section 37 
 as clear as they might be ; the very simple and concise — 
 provisions of the English Act have only in part been 
 followed. Section 37(8), which is in part taken from 
 The Manitoba Assignments Act 1913, s. 62, as amended 
 by chapter 7 of the Acts- of 1919, is in its present form 
 the result of three amendments, one by the Senate to 
 the original bill, one by The Bankruptcy Act Amend- 
 ment Act 1920, and one by The Bankruptcy Act Amend- 
 ment Act '1921. The word "final" in the first line of 
 section 37(2) appears to have been inserted in error 11 . 
 
 The trustee is only required to pay dividends to se C . 37(1). 
 those persons who have proved their debts 1 . He is not^™^* t0 
 required to recognize the rights of an assignee of a who have 
 creditor who has proved his debts. The assignee must pro 
 prove 2 . 
 
 The trustee being responsible to the court for the Dividend 
 due performance of his duties is not a debtor of the Reattached 
 persons entitled to receive dividends, consequently a 
 dividend is not a debt liable to be attached within the 
 meaning of the English Order XLV., Eule l 3 , nor is 
 
 bankrupt or assignor of whom he has notice or knowledge as provided 
 by section forty-two, sub-section two, of this Act, such trustee shall at 
 the expiration of thirty days from the date of the mailing of the last 
 of the said circulars or from the date of last publication (whichever 
 date should last occur) be at liberty to distribute the proceeds of the 
 estate of the bankrupt or assignor among the parties entitled thereto, 
 having regard only to the claims of which the trustee has then notice, 
 and shall not be liable for the proceeds of the estate or assets or any > 
 
 part thereof so distributed to any person of whose claim the trustee 
 has not notice at the time of the distribution thereof. The trustee shall, 
 not later than six months after he is at liberty pursuant to the pro- 
 visions of this section to distribute the proceeds of the estate of the 
 bankrupt or assignor, pay to the Receiver-General of Canada all 
 declared but unpaid dividends remaining in his hands, and shall at the 
 same •time provide a list of the names and post office addresses, so far 
 as known, of the creditors- entitled, showing the respective amounts 
 payable to the respective creditors. The Receiver-General shall, there- 
 after, upon application made, pay to any unpaid creditor his proper 
 dividends as shown on this list, and such payment shall have effect 
 as if made by the trustee. 
 
 11 See as to final dividend section 37(6) (7). 
 
 1 For proof of debts see sections 45, 46. 
 
 2 In re Frost ex parte O. R. (1899) , 2 Q. B. 50 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 663 ; 
 
 6 Mans. 194; and see In re IUff (1902), 51 W. R. 80; In re Hills ex 
 parte Lang (1912), 107 L. T. 95. 
 
 8 Prout v. Gregory (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 281; 59 L. J. Q. B. 118; 
 
 7 Mor. 1 ; and see in the case of a company in liquidation, Spence v. 
 Coleman (1901), 2 K. B. 199; distinguishing En parte Turner, 2 D. F. 
 
390 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Pooling 
 assets in 
 Canada and 
 abroad. 
 
 Section 37 the. surplus money due to the bankrupt after payment 
 ' of one hundred cents on the dollar a "debt" which can 
 be attached 1 . The court in England has no jurisdic- 
 tion either at common law or under section 28 of The 
 Solicitors' Act 1860, to charge a dividend with the 
 costs of a solicitor through whose instrumentality the 
 judgment debt was recovered on which the dividend 
 is due 5 . But a trustee is entitled to retain a dividend 
 against taxed costs which the creditor has been ordered 
 to pay; and this even where the creditor before the 
 dividend becomes payable has assigned for value his 
 claim against the estate, and his assignees have proved 
 in respect of the claim 6 . 
 
 It has been held that where a firm is bankrupt in 
 England and abroad, and has English and foreign 
 assets^ and English and foreign creditors, the court 
 has jurisdiction to sanction an agreement between the 
 trustee in bankruptcy in England and the official 
 assignee abroad for pooling all the assets and distribut- 
 ing them rateably among the English and foreign credi- 
 tors notwithstanding that The Bankruptcy Act 1883, 
 contained no express provisions authorizing such a 
 scheme 7 . 
 Sec. 37(2). Section 37(2) provides for notice of dividend only 
 
 dividend! etc. i n the case of a final dividend, unless the first line of 
 the section can be construed to mean "so soon as a 
 dividend sheet is finally prepared"; a construction 
 which accords better with good practice than does the 
 more obvious construction. No forms have been pro- 
 vided in the Eules to correspond with the requirements 
 of this section. Form 41 obviously refers to section 
 37 (6) . The abstract of receipts and disbursements, and 
 the dividend sheet called for by 37(2), must be mailed 
 
 & J. 354 ; and Klanler v. Weill, 17 T. L. R. 344. A different ruie has 
 been laid down in the case of an assignment for the 'benefit of creditors : 
 Ex parte Parker m re Howe (1887), 12 P. R. 351. 
 
 4 Hunter v. GreensUl (1872), 42 L. J. C. P. 55 ; L. R. 8 C. P. 24. 
 
 'In re Cook ex parte Cripps (1899), 1 Q. B. 863; 68 L. J. Q. B. 
 597 ; 6 Mans. 185. 
 
 "/» re Mayne ex parte 0. R. (1907), 2 K. B. 899; 76 L. J. Q. B. 
 1086 ; 14 Mans. 261. 
 
 7 In re P. Maofadyen & Co. ex parte Vizianagaram Mining Co. 
 (1908), 1 K. B. 675; 77 L. J. K. B. 319; 15 Mans. 28. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 391 
 
 to the Dominion Statistician, Department of Trade and section 37 
 Commerce, Ottawa, promptly after their preparation 8 . 
 
 A secured creditor is not compelled to prove his sec. 37(3). 
 debt; he may decide to rely on his security. If he so 
 decides, and then realizes his security he can come in 
 and prove for the balance due . Semble, a secured 
 creditor who is a mortgagee of shares is not bound to 
 watch the market so as to sell them at the highest 
 price; and he does not by failing to sell at the most 
 favourable opportunity lose his right to prove against 
 the estate of the mortgagor 1 ; . 
 
 The provisions of 37(4) should be read with 28(2), sec. 37(4) (5) 
 which deals with the ranking of claims where there j i nt and 
 are different estates and with 51(3) dealing with the !£P"*J? eg 
 applicability of assets of the different estates. Where 
 a creditor holds a security to cover payment of both 
 joint and separate debts he is entitled to apply the 
 proceeds of the security in paying the two debts in any 
 way he thinks fit 11 . Where there is no joint estate, a 
 joint creditor is entitled to have his debt paid out of 
 the separate estates of the individual partners pari 
 passu with the separate creditors 1 ; and semble, the 
 question as to whether there is or is not joint estate 
 is a matter of fact which may not always require to be 
 evidenced by or depend upon a judicial declaration of 
 insolvency or bankruptcy 2 . 
 
 Under The Insolvent Act of 1864, it would seem sec. 37(9). 
 that an action for a dividend lay against the trustee 4 . ^^F*^^ 01 
 Where a trustee has dividend moneys in hand creditors 
 may apply to the court for an order that the trustee 
 pay the dividend to which they are entitled, even 
 though the trustee has been released from his trustee- 
 ship 5 ; aliter, where the trustee has not the moneys in 
 
 8 Section 24(2) (c). 
 
 "In re MoMurdo, Penfield v. McMurdo (1902), 2 Ch. 684; 71 L. J. 
 Ch. 691, but see s. 46(1) (3). 
 
 10 S. C. 
 
 11 Ex parte Diekin in re Foster (1875), L R. 20 Eq. 767; 44 
 F.. J. Bank. 113. 
 
 *In re Budgett Cooper v. Adams (1894), 2 Ch. 557; 63 L. J. Ch. 
 BIT ; 1 Mans. 230. 
 
 2 In re Carpenter ex parte Besley & Wilson (1890), 7 Mor 270. 
 
 4 Simpson v. Newton (1868), 4 U. C. L.J. N. S. 46. 
 
 5 In re Prager ex parte Societe Cockrill (1876), 3 Ch. D. 115. 
 
392 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 37 hand, having paid them over to the debtor for payment 
 to the creditor 6 . A trustee may set-off against a credi- 
 tor's dividend a claim for damages for wrongful deten- 
 tion of goods of the debtor 7 . A person who owes the 
 estate money, that is to say, who is bound to increase 
 the general mass of the estate by a contribution of his 
 own, cannot claim an aliquot share without first mak- 
 ing his contribution 8 . 
 
 If a creditor takes a dividend he must be held to 
 have taken it in the only character it can legally bear, 
 that is as a dividend on an existing legal debt duly 
 proved. Therefore a creditor who has proved for and 
 accepted a dividend on a debt for the price of goods 
 sold and delivered will not be allowed to succeed in an 
 action for a return of the goods or their value on the 
 ground that they were obtained by fraud and were not 
 validly sold 9 . 
 
 Any distribution of dividends must be made sub- 
 ject to the provisions of sections 48 and 51 and of The 
 Income War Tax Act 10 . 
 
 "Ex parte Carter in re Ware (1878), 8 Ch. D. 731. 
 
 7 In re Prager ex parte SocietS CockriU, supra, and see as to the 
 withholding of a dividend from creditors who wrongfully detain part of 
 the debtor's estate: Ex parte Dooson (1834), 1 Mont. & A. 666; Ea 
 parte Grimwood (1836) , 3 Mont. & A. 290 ; Ex parte Acroyd, 1 Gly. 
 & J. 391. 
 
 "In re Akerman, Aherman v. Akerman (1891), 3 Ch. 212; 61 
 L. J. Ch. 34 ; In re Rodesia Gold Fields, Limited, Partridge v. Rodesia 
 Gold Fields, Limited (1910), 1 Ch. 239; 79 L. J. Ch. 133; In re Na- 
 tional Live Stock . Insurance Company (1917), H. B. R. 119. 
 
 The Kin Tye Loong v. Seth et al. (1920), B. & C. R. 89 ; 2 W. W. 
 R. 450. 
 
 "Sections 7(9) (10) of The Income War Tax Act, 1917, c. 28, 
 as enacted by 1920, c. 49, read : 
 
 7. (9) In cases wherein trustees in bankruptcy, assignees, liquida- 
 tors, curators, receivers, administrators, heirs, executors and such other 
 like persons or legal representatives are administering, managing, wind- 
 ing-up, controlling, or otherwise dealing with the property, business or 
 estate of any person who has not made a return for any taxable period, 
 or for any portion of a taxable period for wh : ch such person was 
 required to make a return in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 
 they shall make such return and shall pay any tax and surtax and 
 interest and penalties assessed and levied with respect thereto before 
 making any distribution of the said property, bus'ness or estate. 
 
 (10) Trustees in bankruptcy, assignees, administrators, executors 
 and other like persons, before distributing any assets under their control, 
 shall obtain a certificate from the Minister certifying that no unpaid 
 assessment of income tax, surtax, interest and penalties properly charge- 
 able against the person, property, business or estate, as the case may be, 
 remains outstanding. Distribution without such certificate shall render 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 393 
 
 38. The debtor shall be entitled to any surplus section 38 
 remaining after payment in full of his Right of 
 creditors with interest as by this Act pro- ^°^° 
 vided and of the costs, charges and expenses 
 of the proceedings under the bankruptcy 
 petition or under the authorized assign- 
 ment. 
 
 Cross References Act: Interest, 49, 51(5) ; payment in full by 
 bond, 62(4); dividends, 37; "costs of administration," 51(2); "fees 
 and expenses of the trustee," 51(1). 
 
 Cross References Rules: Costs and taxation, 54-61; fees, 62. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Tariff of costs, Part II. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, section 69, Dominion 
 Winding-up Act, 1914, section 93. 
 
 The trustee takes all the bankrupt's property for Rights of 
 an absolute estate in law, but for limited purposes, g^pius m 
 namely for the payment of the creditors under the 
 bankruptcy. Subject to that he is, it seems, trustee 
 for the bankrupt of the surplus"; although as such 
 trustee he is in a better position than an ordinary 
 trustee, in that the bankrupt has not usually 10 the right 
 of a cestui que trust to intervene until the surplus has 
 been ascertained to exist, and all the creditors' interest 
 and costs have been paid 1 . The bankrupt has a right 
 to the surplus, and can dispose of it by will or deed or 
 otherwise during the pendency of the bankruptcy even 
 before the surplus is ascertained 2 . Under a receiving 
 order after-acquired property goes to the trustee, and 
 this may create a surplus; but there may be cases 
 where there is a surplus apart from after-acquired 
 
 the trustees in bankruptcy, assignees, administrators, executors and 
 other like persons personally liable for the tax, surtax, interest and 
 penalties. 
 
 8 Bird v. Philpott (1900) , 1 Ch. 822 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 487 ; 7 Mans. 251 ; 
 Charman v. Charman (1808), 14 Ves. 580, 585; but see Ex parte 
 Sheffield in re Austin (1879) 10 Ch. D. 434; In re Leadbitter (1878), 
 10 Ch. D. 388 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 242 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 7. 
 
 10 See in an exceptional case Ex parte and in re Austin (1876), 4 
 Ch. D. 13; 46 L. J. Bank. 1, and notes to section 25. 
 
 '■Ex parte Sheffield in re Austin (1879), 10 Ch. D. 434: In re Lead- 
 Utter, supra, as explained in Bird v. Philpott, supra. 
 
 'Bird v. Philpott, supra; In re Evelyn (1894), 2 Q. B. 302; 63 
 h. J. Q. B. 658 ; 70 L. T. 692 ; 1 Mans. 195. 
 
394 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 39 property 3 . Cases where the bankrupt has dealt with 
 such a surplus are to be distinguished from cases 
 where he deals with after-acquired property to which 
 section 34 applies 4 . The trustee in a second bankruptcy 
 takes the surplus and after-acquired property subject 
 to whatever effective disposition the bankrupt has 
 made of it 5 . It has been held that the surplus of a 
 bankrupt's estate is not a "debt" that can be attached 
 within the meaning of The Common Law Procedure 
 Act 1854". 
 
 In the distribution of surplus assets the holders of 
 fully paid up shares will normally 7 be entitled to a 
 preferential distribution of assets over those whose 
 shares are not fully paid up to the extent necessary to 
 equalize the payments on the shares 8 . 
 
 Preference shareholders have, apart from any 
 restrictions in the memorandum and articles of associa- 
 tion 9 , a right as corporators to participate in surplus 
 assets 10 . A right to a preferential dividend will not 
 carry a right to a preferential division of surplus 
 assets 1 . 
 
 Sharehold- 
 ers. 
 
 Appeal to 
 court against 
 trustee. 
 
 Appeals from Decisions of Trustee. 
 
 39. If the debtor or any of the creditors or 
 any other person is aggrieved by any act or 
 decision of the trustee, he may apply to the 
 court and the court may confirm, reverse or 
 
 3 In re Evelyn, supra, and see Ex parte and in re Austin (1876) , 4 
 Ch. I>. 13 ; 46 L. J. Bank. 1. 
 
 4 See Ex, parte Rushford in re Adie (1901), 84 L. T. N. S. 508. 
 
 5 Bird v. Philpott, supra; Ex parte Rushford m re Adie, supra. 
 "Hunter v. OreensiU (1872), L. R. 8 C. P. 24; 42 L. J. 0. P. 55. 
 
 7 See where there were special terms' in Re Eclipse Gold Mining Co. 
 (1874), L. R. 17 Eq. 490. 
 
 "Ex parte Maude in re Hodges Distilling Co. (1871), 6 Ch. 51, 55; 
 In re Weymouth & Channel Island Steam Packet Go. (1891), 1 Ch. 66; 
 In re Wakefield Rolling Stock Co. (1892), 3 Ch 165; In re Anglo-Con- 
 tinental Corporation of Western Australia (1898), 1 Ch. 327, and see 
 In re Colonial Assurance Co., Ltd. (1916), 29 D. L. R. 488. 
 
 'Morrow v. Peterborough Water Co. (1902), 4 O. L. R. 324. 
 
 10 Birch v. Cropper, 14 A. C. 525 ; In re Eraser & Chalmers, Ltd. 
 (1919). 2 Ch. 114; In re Espuela Land and Cattle Co. (1909), 2 Ch. 
 187 ; In re London India Rubier Co. (1867), 5 Eq. 519. 
 
 1 In re London India Rubber Co., supra. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 395 
 
 modify the act or decision complained of section 39 
 and make such order in the premises as it 
 thinks just. 
 
 Cross References Act: Appeals from the decision of a court or 
 judge, 74(2) ; power of court where body of persons with alternative 
 powers, 88a. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Application to be by motion, 14-19. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts, 1914, s. 80; 1883, s. 90;' 
 Ontario Assignments Act, 1914, s. 28. 
 
 The court will not at the instance of a creditor 
 interfere with the trustee 's discretion in the realization 
 of the estate unless it be shown that the trustee is act- 
 ing unreasonably 2 . The fact that the bankrupt has an 
 interest in the surplus will not give him or anyone 
 claiming under him a right to interfere in the admin- 
 istration of the estate 3 or to apply to the court, except 
 in an unusual case*. Decisions on the meaning of 
 "aggrieved" are mainly on section 108 of the Eng- 
 lish Act, which deals with appeals, from orders in 
 bankruptcy matters. In section 74 of The Bankruptcy 
 Act the word "dissatisfied" has been substituted for 
 "aggrieved" 5 . 
 
 2 Ex parte Lloyd in re Peters (1882), 47 L. T. 64. 
 
 3 Ex parte Sheffield in re Austin (1879), 10 Oh. D. 434; In re Lead- 
 bitter (1878), 10 Ch. D. 388; 48 L. J. Oh. 242; 48 L. J. Bank. 7. 
 
 * In re and ex parte Austin (1876) , 4 Ch. D. 13 ; 46 h. J. Bank. 1. 
 
 "As to the meaning of aggrieved see particularly per James, L.J., 
 in Ex parte and in re Sidehotham (1879), 14 Ch. D. 458, 465, 466; 49 L. 
 J. Bank. 41. In the follow ; ng cases the person has been held to have been 
 aggrieved; Em parte Thoday in re Ellis (1876), 2 Ch. D. 229 797; 45 
 L. J. Bank. 64 ; Ex parte Learoyd in re Foulds (1878). 10 Ch. D. 3 ; 48 
 L. J. Bank. 17; Ex parte Sadler in re Whelan (1879), 48 L. J. Bank. 
 43; Ex parte Castle Mail Packets Co. in re Payne (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 
 154; 3 Mor. 270; In re Batten ex- parte Milne (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 685, 
 690; 58 L. J. Q. B. 338; 6 Mor. 110; Re Langtry (1894), 63 L. J. Q. B. 
 570; 1 Mans. 169; In re Lamb ex parte Board of Trade (1894), 2 
 Q. B. 805 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 71 ; 1 Mans. 373 In re Kitson ex parte Sugden 
 & Son. Ltd. (1911), 2 K. B. 109; 80 L. J. K. B. 1147; 18 Mans. 224; 
 In re Hosking (1912), 106 L. T. 640; In re a Debtor (1912), 106 L. T. 
 344 ; 55 S. J. 689 ; and in the following cases the person has been held 
 not to have been aggrleve'd": Es parte and in re Sidebotham (1879), 14 
 Oh. D. 458; 49 L. .T. Bank. 41; Revell v. Blake (1873), L. R. 8 C. P. 
 533; 42 L. J. C. P. 195; Ex parte Brown in re Appleby (1876), 2 Ch. 
 D. 799; 43 L. J. Bank. 115; Ex parte Ditton in re Woods (1879), 11 
 Ch. D. 56 ; 40 L. T. 297 ; 27 W. R. 401 ; Ex parte Mason in re White 
 (1880), 14 Ch. D. 71; 49 L. J. Bank, m; E® parte Evans in re Orbell 
 (1881), 44 L. T. 762; 29 W. R. 573; In re Jameson & Sandys ex parte 
 Cresswell & Jameson (1891), 8 Mor. 278. 
 
396 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 40 
 
 The Court has entertained an application under sec- 
 tion 39 to restrain a proposed sale of the assets of an 
 insolvent company to a shareholder of the company, 
 although the offer to purchase had been accepted by 
 the trustee and the majority of the inspectors 6 . 
 
 Remunera- 
 tion of 
 trustee. 
 
 Limited to 
 5 per cent. 
 
 Not to exceed 
 5 per cent. 
 
 Disburse- 
 ments to be 
 taxed. 
 
 Remuneration of Trustee. 
 
 40 (1) The remuneration of the trustee in bank- 
 ruptcy or in any other proceedings under 
 this Act, for his services, .excepting those 
 rendered (a) upon the adjustment of the, 
 rights of contributories as among them- 
 selves, and (&) in connection with the appli- 
 cation of- a bankrupt or authorized assignor 
 for a discharge, shall be such as is voted to 
 the trustee by a majority of creditors pre- 
 sent at any general meeting. In the ex- 
 cepted cases the trustee's remuneration shall 
 be fixed by the court. 
 
 (2) "Where the remuneration of the trustee has 
 not been fixed under the next preceding sub- 
 section before the final dividend, the trustee 
 may insert in the final dividend sheet and 
 retain as his remuneration a sum not exceed- 
 ing five per cent, of the cash receipts, subject 
 to reduction by the court upon application 
 of any creditor or of the debtor. 
 
 (3) The remuneration of the trustee for all 
 services shall not under any circumstances 
 exceed five per cent, of the cash receipts. 
 
 (4) The disbursements of a trustee shall in all 
 cases be taxed by the prescribed authority 
 unless such taxation is waived either by 
 creditors at a general meeting called prior 
 to the declaration of the final dividend, or 
 by the inspectors. 
 
 Cross References Act: Appointment of trustees, 14 ; substitu- 
 tion of trustees, 15; resolution means ordinary resolution, 2(ff); 
 
 8 Imperial Bank of Canada v. Barter (1921), 1 0. B. It. 485; 20 
 0. W. N. 282 (Middleton, J.). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 397 
 
 ordinary resolution, 42(14), 2(z) ; priority of payment of fees and Section 40 
 
 expenses of trustee, 51(1) ; final dividend, 37(6) ; employment of solici- . — 
 
 tor or other agent, 20(1) (d) ; 20(1) (c), 67; carrying on business of 
 debtor, 20(1) (J) ; allowance to debtor, 21. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Application to court by motion, 14 ; 
 taxation, 54-61 ; fees, 62 
 
 Cross References Forms: Tariff, Part II. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: Canadian Act, 1S75, s. 43 ; 1869, s. 52 ; 
 English Act, 1914, s. 82; Ontario Assignments Act, 1914, ss. 35, 36; 
 R. S. M., 1913. c. 12. ss. 57-59. 
 
 Section 40(1) is in the form in which it was enacted 
 by section 33 of The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act 
 1921 7 . 
 
 The trustee can look only to the assets of the estate Trustee looks 
 for his remuneration and disbursements and not to the °state° 
 creditors personally, unless they directly or impliedly 
 promise to pay him 8 . A trustee who commits a fraud 
 forfeits his right to costs out of the bankrupt's estate 8 . 
 
 Where a certain rate of remuneration is voted by once re- 
 the creditors on the basis of which the trustee does fi"^^^ 
 work the creditors cannot of their own motion after the tors alone 
 work has been done alter or qualify the terms of the terms. 
 resolution to the detriment of the trustee. If a mis- 
 take has been made in expressing the intention of the 
 creditors, application should be made to the court to 
 have the matter put right 10 . 
 
 It was held under the English Act of 1883, that a Professional 
 solicitor who acted as trustee, and who was allowed by char £' es -' 
 the inspectors to charge "his proper professional 
 
 ' The previous section read : 
 
 40. (1) The trustee in bankruptcy or in any other proceedings 
 under this Act shall receive such remuneration as shall be voted to him 
 by the creditors at any general meeting. 
 
 "Johnston v. Dulmage (1899), 30 O. R. 233; a trustee in the 
 absence of misconduct is entitled to be recouped his costs, charges and 
 expenses against the trust estate, even in the case of unsuccessful litiga- 
 tion : Pitts v. LaFontaine, 6 A. C. 482 ; (1881) , 50 I,. J. P. C. S ; Smith 
 v. Seal (1894), 25 O. R. 308, 377. 
 
 'Ex parte Harper in re Pooley (18S2) , 20 Ch. D. 085, 686 ; 51 L. J. 
 Ch. 810. 
 
 10 In re Marsden ex parte Board of Trade (1892), 9 Mor. 70, and 
 see In re Shirley ex parte Board of Trade (1892), 9 Mor. 147 as to 
 the principles which have been laid down for the guidance of the Board 
 of Trade in supervising the charges to be allowed to trustees ; and In re 
 Fleming (1886) , 11 P. R. 426, with respect to the remuneration of trus- 
 tees under The Ontario Trustee Act. 
 
398 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 41 charges as a solicitor for attendance and work done 
 and expenses incurred by him in or about the proceed- 
 ings in the bankruptcy" was only entitled to remunera- 
 tion in the nature of a commission or percentage by vir- 
 tue of section 72 of that Act 11 . A trustee who is a solici- 
 tor cannot make any profits as a solicitor on business 
 done by himself cr his firm in matters relating to the 
 estate 12 . 
 
 The inspectors are to act on their own responsibil- 
 ity in making- payments to the trustee on account of 
 his charges. The trustee should not petition the Court 
 for authorization to pay money to himself on account 
 of fees 13 . 
 
 Semble, the maximum of five per cent, allowed to 
 the trustee on the cash receipts means five per cent, 
 on what is actually received by the trustee for the time 
 being 1 . 
 
 In the absence of fraud the trustee is entitled to his 
 costs in spite of the fact that the proofs of those who 
 elected him trustee and authorized him to incur such 
 costs have subsequently been expunged 2 . 
 
 Gash 
 receipts. 
 
 Discharge of 
 trustee. 
 
 Discharge of Trustee. 
 
 41 (1) The court may by its order discharge an 
 authorized trustee from his trusts and from 
 further performance of all or any of his 
 duties and obligations with respect to any 
 estate, upon full administration of the 
 affairs thereof or, for sufficient cause, before 
 full administration. The court shall require 
 proof of the extent of administration and 
 (where there has not. been full administra- 
 
 11 In re Wayman ex parte 0. R. (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 68. 
 
 12 In re Corsellis, Lawton v. Elires (18S7), 37 Ch. D. 675; Strachan 
 v. Ruttan (1892). 15 P. R. 109; In re Kelly ex parte Sturdee (1897), 
 17 C. L. T Occ. N. 65 and see notes to section 43, Inspectors. 
 
 13 In re Cameron (1921), 1 C. B. R. 450 (Panneton, J.). 
 
 '■In re Christie (1900), 1 Q. B. 5 ; 69 L. J. Q. B, 31 ; 7 Mans. 1. 
 
 Five per cent, was " thought sufficient " in a small assignment under The 
 
 Creditors' Trust Deeds Act m In re Ley et al. (1900) , 7 B. C. R. 94. 
 
 "In re Jones ex parte Ooatley (1911), 56 Sol. J. 17. See S. 15(3) 
 
 As to change of trustee. See also notes to section 53, on Inspectors. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 399 
 
 tion) of the condition of the estate and of section 41 
 the alleged sufficient cause. 
 
 (2) In particular the trustee shall be entitled to Discharge 
 be discharged as aforesaid if, before full ad- trulteeTas er 
 ministration of the affairs of an estate, tinted 
 another trustee has been substituted for the U^etory 
 trustee applying, the latter has accounted to 
 
 the satisfaction of the inspectors or the court 
 " for all property of the estate which came to 
 his hands and a period of three months has 
 elapsed after the date of such substitution 
 without any undisposed of claim or objec- 
 tion having been made by the debtor or any 
 creditor ; 
 
 (3) When the trustee's receipts, disbursements Discharge 
 and accounts have been approved in writing ^counts 
 by the inspectors or the court, a period of |P§ r ^* d 
 two years has elapsed after payment of the years have 
 final dividend and proof has been supplied n naT e 
 that all objections, applications and appeals dlvldend - 
 made by any creditor or the debtor have in 
 
 the meantime been settled or satisfactorily 
 disposed of, the affairs of the estate shall be 
 deemed to have been fully administered ; 
 
 (4) The discharge of a trustee under the provi- special 
 sions of this section shall operate as a release reSk^ed. 
 of the special security provided pursuant to 
 subsection eight of section fourteen of this 
 Act; 
 
 (5) Nothing in or done under authority of this Fraud or 
 section shall relieve or discharge or be trust*** 
 deemed to relieve or discharge a trustee 
 from the results of fraud or any fraudulent 
 breach of trust ; 
 
 (.6) The trustee shall finally dispose of all books Disposal of 
 and papers of the estate of the bankrupt or papers 311 * 1 
 authorized assignor in manner prescribed 
 by general rules. 
 
 Cross. References Act: Substitution, removal or appointment of 
 trustees, 15, 14(9) (10) ; general security, 14(4) ; special security, 
 14(8). 
 
400 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 41 Cross References Rules: Discharge of trustee, 107-111 ; dis- 
 position of books and papers, 110. 
 
 Transmis- 
 sion of 
 interest. 
 
 Court has 
 jurisdiction 
 notwith- 
 standing 
 discharge. 
 
 General 
 security. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Application of trustee for discharge, 
 42 ; affidavit verifying application of trustee for discharge, 43 ; order 
 discharging trustee, 44. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: Canadian Acts, 1875, ss. 47-48; English 
 Act, 1914, s. 93, and Rule 340. 
 
 Section 41 is in the form in which it was enacted 
 by section 34 of The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act 
 of 1921 s . 
 
 Under the English Act the official receiver becomes 
 trustee on the release of the trustee 4 . Our Act nowhere 
 provides for the disposition of the estate on the death 
 of the trustee, unless section 15(3) can be read as 
 extending to such a case. 
 
 Even though a trustee has been released from his 
 trusteeship, the court has jurisdiction to order him 
 to pay to creditors who are entitled to it, dividend 
 money which he has on hand 5 . 
 
 Where no special security has been provided the 
 general security is available for creditors 6 . It was sug- 
 gested in Armstrong v. Foster 7 , a case under The 
 Insolvent Act of 1875, that the sureties to a general 
 security are discharged by payment to . anyone who 
 recovers judgment against them. 
 
 8 The prev'ous section read : 
 
 41. (1) Wben the affairs of an estate have been fully adminis- 
 tered, or, for sufficient cause, before full administration, an authorized 
 trustee may, upon his own request, be discharged from further perform- 
 ance of all or any of his duties and obligations with respect to such 
 estate. 
 
 (2) Puch discharge may be granted by order of the court. 
 
 (3) The grant of such discharge (whether full or partial) shall 
 operate as a release of the special security provided pursuant to sub- 
 sect'on ei'ht of section fourteen. 
 
 (4) The trustee shall fina'ly dispose of all books and papers of the 
 estate of f-e bankrupt or authorized assignor in manner prescribed by 
 Generpl Rules. 
 
 4 Section 93(5). 
 
 " In re Praqer ex parte Soeiete Cockrill (1876), 3 Ch. D. 115; 45 
 L. J. Bnnk. 124 : of. Ex parte Carter in re Ware (1878) . 8 Ch. D. 731. 
 
 6 Leto'irrieux v. Dansereau (1886), 12 S. C. R. 307 ;' A rmstrong v. 
 Foster f1P84). 6 O. R 129; see section 14(4) (5). 
 
 7 (1S84), 6 O. R. 129. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 401 
 
 PART IV. 
 
 CREDITORS. 
 
 Meetings of Creditors. 
 
 42 (1) As soon as may be after the making of section 42 
 a receiving order against a debtor or after Mee t ings f 
 the making of an authorized assignment by "editors. 
 a debtor, a general meeting of creditors (in 
 this Act referred to as the first- meeting of 
 creditors) shall be held for the purpose of 
 considering the affairs of the debtor and to 
 appoint inspectors and give directions to 
 the trustee with reference to the disposal of 
 the estate. 
 
 (2) It shall be the duty of the trustee to inform Notice of 
 himself, by reference to the debtor and his first meeting ' 
 records and otherwise, of the names and 
 addresses of the creditors, and within five 
 
 days from the date of the receiving order or 
 assignment, to mail prepaid and registered 
 to every creditor known to him a circular 
 calling the first meeting of creditors at his 
 office or some other convenient place to be 
 named in the notice, for a date not later than 
 fifteen days after the mailing of such notice. 
 
 (3) The trustee may at any time call a meeting Meeting of 
 of creditors, and he shall do so whenever by 6 request. 
 requested in writing by twenty-five per 
 
 cent, in number of the known creditors hold- 
 ing twenty-five per cent, in value of the 
 known claims. But, after the first meeting 
 he shall not be under obligation to give 
 notice of any meeting to any creditors other 
 than those who have proved their debts. 
 
 (4) Meetings other than the first thereof shall Notice of 
 be called, by mailing or otherwise giving meetings"' 
 
 B.c— 26 
 
402 
 Section 42 
 
 Chairman 
 of meetings. 
 
 Quorum. 
 
 Adjourn- 
 ment. 
 
 Minutes of 
 meeting. 
 
 Right o£ 
 creditor to 
 vote. 
 
 Voting by 
 
 secured 
 
 creditor. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 notice of the time and place thereof to each 
 creditor at the address given in his proof of 
 claim. 
 
 (5) At all meetings the chairman shall be such 
 person as the meeting by resolution ap- 
 points, and he may with the consent of the 
 meeting adjourn the meeting from time to 
 time and from place to place. 
 
 (6) A meeting shall not be competent to act for 
 any purpose except the election of a chair- 
 man of and the adjournment of the meeting, 
 unless there are present or represented at 
 least, three creditors, or all the creditors if 
 their number does not exceed three. 
 
 (7) If within half an hour from the time 
 appointed for the meeting a quorum of 
 creditors is not present or represented, the 
 meeting shall be adjourned to the same day 
 in the following week at the same time and 
 place, or to such other day as the chairman 
 may appoint, not. being less than seven nor 
 more than twenty-one days. 
 
 (8) The chairman shall cause minutes of the 
 proceedings at the meeting to be drawn up 
 and fairly entered in a book kept for that 
 purpose, and the minutes shall be signed by 
 him or by the chairman of the next ensuing 
 meeting. 
 
 (9) A person shall not be entitled to vote as a 
 creditor at the first or any other meeting of 
 creditors unless he has duly proved a debt 
 provable in bankruptcy or under an autho- 
 rized assignment to be due to him from the 
 debtor, and the proof has been duly lodged 
 with the trustee before the time appointed 
 for the meeting. 
 
 (10) For the purpose of voting, a secured 
 creditor shall unless he surrenders his 
 security, state in his proof the particulars 
 of his security, the date when it was given, 
 and the value at which he assesses it, and 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 403 
 
 shall be entitled to vote only in respect of section 42 
 the balance (if any) due to him, after 
 deducting the value of his security. 
 
 (11) A creditor shall not vote in respect of any creditor 
 debt on or secured by a current bill of ex- MUoirnaL 
 change or promissory note held by him, 
 unless he is willing to treat the liability to 
 
 him thereon of every person who is liable 
 thereon antecedently to the debtor, and 
 against whom a receiving order has not been 
 made, or by whom an authorized assignment 
 has not been made, as a security in his 
 hands, and to estimate the value thereof, 
 and for the purposes of voting, but not for 
 the purposes of dividend, to deduct it from 
 his proof. 
 
 (12) The chairman of the meeting shall have Power of 
 
 ■ n-j. 1 j>j»jji. chairman of 
 
 power to admit or reject a proof for the creditors- 
 purpose of voting, but his decision shall be^ft^, 
 subject to appeal to the court. He may, for re J ect P roof - 
 the same purpose, notwithstanding anything 
 in this Act, accept telegraphic or cable com- 
 munication as proof of the debt of a creditor 
 who carries on business out of Canada and 
 likewise as to the authority of any one claim- 
 ing to represent and vote on behalf of such 
 creditor. If the chairman is in doubt 
 whether the proof of a creditor should be 
 admitted or rejected he shall mark the proof 
 as objected to and allow the creditor to vote 
 subject to the vote being declared invalid in 
 the event of the objection being sustained. 
 
 (13) A creditor may vote either in person or voting by 
 by proxy deposited with the trustee at or proxy- 
 before the meeting at which it is to be used. 
 
 The trustee shall send to each creditor with 
 the notice summoning the first meeting of 
 creditors, a proxy in the form prescribed by 
 General Rules ; but neither the name of the 
 trustee nor of any other person shall be 
 printed or inserted in the proxy before it is 
 
404 
 Section 42 
 
 Scale of 
 votes. 
 
 Claims 
 acquired 
 after assign- 
 ment. 
 
 Secured 
 creditor. 
 
 Trustee. 
 
 Corporation. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 so sent. A proxy shall not be invalid merely 
 because it is in the form of a letter, telegram 
 or cable. 
 
 (14) Subject to the provisions of this Act, all 
 questions at meeting of creditors shall be 
 decided by resolution carried by the 
 majority of votes, and for such purpose the 
 votes of creditors shall be calculated as 
 follows : — 
 
 For every claim of or over twenty-five 
 dollars and not exceeding two hun- 
 dred dollars — one vote ; 
 
 For every claim of over two hundred 
 dollars and not exceeding five hun- 
 dred dollars- — two votes; 
 
 For every claim of over five hundred 
 dollars and not exceeding one thou- 
 sand dollars — three votes; 
 
 For every additional one thousand dol- 
 lars or fraction thereof —one vote. 
 
 (15) No person shall be entitled to vote on a 
 claim acquired after the assignment unless 
 the entire claim is acquired, but this shall 
 not apply to persons acquiring notes, bills 
 or other securities upon which they are 
 liable. 
 
 (16) A secured creditor shall not be entitled to 
 vote at any meeting of creditors until he has 
 proved his claim and valued his security as 
 hereinafter provided. 
 
 (17) The trustee, if a creditor or a proxy for a 
 creditor, may vote as a creditor at any meet- 
 ing of creditors, and, in addition, in case of 
 a tie, shall have a casting vote, personally, 
 as if he were a creditor holding a proved 
 claim of twenty-five dollars. 
 
 (18) A corporation may vote at meetings of 
 creditors as if a natural person, by an autho- 
 rized agent. 
 
 (19) The vote of the trustee, or of his partner, 
 clerk solicitor, or solicitor's clerk, either as 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 405 
 
 creditor or as proxy for a creditor, shall section 42 
 not be reckoned in the majority required for No vote of 
 passing any resolution affecting the re-*™ 8 ^™ 
 muneration or conduct of the trustee. tion. 
 
 Cross References Act: Resolution, 2(ff) ; ordinary resolution, 
 2(«) ; special resolution, 2(ii) ; inspectors, 43; debts provable, 44; 
 proof of debts, 45 ; proof by secured creditors, 46 ; secured creditor 
 defined, 2(gg) ; creditor in case of corporation, 2(m) ; meetings for com- 
 position, etc., 13(l)-(4) ; attendance of debtor at first meeting, 54(3) (4) ; 
 publication of notice of first meeting, 11 (4) ; service by mail, 83 ; signa- • 
 ture of minutes by chairman. 77(1) ; evidence of regularity of proceed- 
 ings, 77(2) ; duties and powers of trustee, 17 et seq.; remuneration of 
 trustee, 40; debtor defined, 2(0) ; person defined, 2 (ft) ; corporation 
 defined, 2(fc) ; corporation may act by its officers, 85; trustee to keep 
 minutes of proceedings, 23 ; trustee's books may be inspected by creditors, 
 23. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Meeting of creditors, 112-114; in case 
 of composition, etc., 98, 99 ; proof of claims, 115, 116 ; disallowance of 
 claims, 117, 118 ; valuation of contingent or unliquidated claims, 119 ; 
 service and execution of process, 50-52; non-receipt of notice. 112(1) ; 
 application to court to be by motion, 14 ; rules with respect to motions, 
 15-19. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Notice of first meeting where R. O. 
 or A. A. made, 20 ; general proxy, 45 ; special proxy, 46 ; notice to debtor 
 of meeting of creditors, 53; notice of meeting to appoint new trustee, 
 32 ; resolution appointing, etc., new trustee, 33 ; proof of debt, 47, 48 ; 
 resolutions accepting composition, extension, etc., 25, 26 ; voting letter, 
 22 ; notice to creditors where debtor submits offer of composition, etc., 
 21. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. 13, 79(2) ; schedule, 
 1, passim; Ontario Assignments Act, 1914, .ss. 21, 23 to 25; Manitoba 
 Assignments Act, 1913, ss. 18 to 22 ; Dominion Winding-up Act, (1906), 
 ss. 61-66. 
 
 Analysis of Notes, Section 42. 
 
 42(2) First meeting. 
 
 42(5) Adjournment of meetings. 
 
 42(6) Quorum. 
 
 42(8) Duties of chairman. 
 
 42(9) Right of creditor to vote. 
 
 42(10) Position of secured creditor who votes in respect of whole 
 
 debt. 
 42(11) Creditor must produce bill of exchange. 
 42(12) Rejection of proof. 
 42(14). 
 
 Section 42(12) is in the form in which it was en- 
 acted by section 35 by The Bankruptcy Act Amend- 
 ment Act 1921 6 . 
 
 The previous section read : 
 
 42. (12) The chairman of a meeting shall have power to admit or 
 reject a proof for the purpose of voting, but his decision shall be sub- 
 ject to appeal to the court. If he is in doubt whether the proof of a 
 
406 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 43 
 
 Sec. 42(2). 
 First 
 meeting. . 
 
 Sec. 42(5). 
 Adjournment 
 of meetings. 
 
 Sec. 42(6). 
 Quorum. 
 
 Sec. 42(8). 
 Duties of 
 chairman. 
 
 Sec. 42(9). 
 Bight of 
 creditor to 
 vote. 
 
 There is no express provision in The Bankruptcy 
 Act or Eules giving power to the court to reconvene a 
 first meeting of creditors; nor was there any such 
 express authority in the Act of 1869 ; and yet the court 
 from time to time has exercised a discretion to recon- 
 vene the meeting when owing to the subsequent rejec- 
 tion or admission of proofs or for other reasons the 
 wishes of the creditors have' not been ascertained; or 
 where the court is of the opinion that the creditors 
 should have an opportunity of reconsidering an 
 improper resolution which had been passed; or where 
 through some mistake no valid resolution has been 
 passed 7 . 
 
 The wording of section 42(5) appears to negative 
 the decision in Ex parte Orde in re Horsley*, in • which 
 it was held that there must be a formal resolution of 
 adjournment if the adjournment is to be valid. 
 
 Presumably the quorum must consist of creditors 
 who are entitled to vote, that is to say who have proved 
 their debts 9 . 
 
 It is no part of the duty of the chairman to take 
 notes of the debtor's examination 10 . 
 
 The right of a creditor to vote at any meeting 
 depends on proof of his debt 1 . Section 42(9) says that 
 a creditor shall not be entitled to vote unless he has 
 "proved a debt provable in bankruptcy". Creditors 
 with contingent claims or claims for unliquidated dam- 
 ages may not vote until their claims have been valued 
 by the court, for it is not until after such valuation that 
 
 creditor should be admitted or rejected-, he shall mark the proof as 
 objected to, and shall allow the creditor to vote, subject to the vote being 
 declared invalid in the event of the objection being sustained. 
 
 ■•Ex parte Gibbs in re Webb (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 382; 44 L. J. 
 Bank. 73; Ex parte Cobb in re Sedley (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 727; 42 L. J. 
 Bank. 63; In re and ex parte Terrell (1876), 4 Ch. D. 293; 46 L. J. 
 Bank. 47 ; Ex parte Solomon in re Tilley (1882) , 20 Ch. D. 281 ; 51 L. J. 
 Ch. 677; In re and ex parte McHenry (1883), 24 Ch. D. 35; 53 L. J. 
 Ch. 27 ; and compare under the Companies Winding-up Act, 1890, In re 
 Radford, Bright & Co. (1901) . 1 Ch. 272, 735 ; In re Reynolds & Co. 
 (1895), W. N. 31, but see Ex parte Bourner in re Bradley, 54 Sol. J. 
 444. and see infra notes to s. 42(17). 
 
 8 L. R. 6 Ch. 881 ; 40 L. J. Bank. 60. 
 
 See infra, notes to s. 42(9). 
 
 "Ex parte Solomon in re Tilley (1882), 20 Oh. D. 281; 51 L. J. 
 Ch. 677. 
 
 "Section 42(9) (16). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 407 
 
 such a claim is deemed a proved debt for the purposes Section 42 
 of the Act 2 . 
 
 Section 42(10) requires a secured creditor to state Sec.42(i0). 
 in his proof particulars of his security and to assess secured 
 it, and permits him to vote only in respect of the bal- ^^ who 
 ance due him after deducting the value of his security 3 . re f p ] ee * I L 
 Section 42(16), says that a secured creditor is not 
 entitled to vote at any meeting of creditors until he has 
 proved his claim and valued his security. In spite of 
 these requirements the ■ case is bound • to arise of a 
 creditor who is in fact a secured creditor proving his 
 debt without mentioning his security and voting in 
 respect of his whole debt. The last part of Eule 10 of 
 Schedule I. of the English Act provides for this case : — 
 
 "If he votes in respect of his whole debt he shall 
 be deemed to have surrendered his security unless the 
 court on application is satisfied that the omission to 
 value the security has arisen from inadvertence". 
 
 This provision has been omitted from 42(10), which 
 corresponds with the first part of Eule 10 of Schedule 
 I. The result is to make it necessary to resort to the 
 practice prior to the Act of 1883. It was held under 
 The Bankruptcy Act of 1869, that where a secured 
 creditor votes without producing his security or men- 
 tioning it in his proof, his vote is valid, but his security 
 is forfeited for the benefit of the estate 4 . But this 
 rule is, it seems, subject to the qualification that a 
 secured creditor who has by mistake omitted from his 
 debt a part of his security, may be allowed to rectify 
 his proof 5 . The principle on -which rectification will 
 
 2 Section 44(3) and see under the old statutes Ex parte Simpson 
 (1744), 1 Atk. TO, mentioned in Ex parte Ruffle in re Dumelaw (1873), 
 L. R. 8 Ch. 997; 42 L. J. Bank. 82; In re Canadian Pacific Coloniza- 
 tion Co., Ltd. (1891), W. N. 122 ; Ex parte Kimoer in re Thrift. 11 Ch. 
 D. 869 ; Ex parte Boler. 1 M. D. & D. 602 ; Ex parte Knight, 2 M. & A. 
 545 ; Ex parte Beasley, 2 M. & A. 632. 
 
 "See sections 45 and 46, particularly 46(3). as to the rules with 
 respect to valuation of securities on proof of debts. See notes to section 
 46 with respect to withdrawal of proof by a secured creditor. 
 
 'Ex parte Ashworth in re Iloare (1874) , L R. 18 Eq. 705 : 43 L. J. 
 Bank. 143 ; and see Ex> parte Solomon, 1- Gly. & J. 25. and Ex parte 
 Doumes, 1 Rose 96; Ex parte Wood in re Wright (1879). 10 Ch. D. 
 554 ; but see Box v. Bird's Hill Land Co. (1913) , 24 W. L. R. 706 ; 23 M. 
 L. R. 415 
 
 'Ex parte Bagshaw in re Ker (1879), 13 Ch. T>. 304; Ex parte 
 Schofield in re Firth (1879) , 12 Ch. D. 337, at p. 345 ; 48 L. J. Bank. 
 
408 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 42 be allowed depends on whether the creditor has elected 
 ~ to abandon his security. If what he has done has been 
 done accidentally he ought, on such terms as the court 
 may think fit to impose, to be relieved from the loss of 
 his security. If the creditor has balanced the advant- 
 ages and deliberately elected to prove in that way there 
 is no inadvertence. It is a question of fact 6 . Where 
 a creditor omits to value his security by reason of 
 erroneous information leading him to suppose it to be 
 worthless there is not an omission to value from inad- 
 vertence 7 . A statement that a security is worthless 
 is not an omission to value 8 . The fact that mortgagees 
 have valued their security (before discovering that 
 certain property intended to be included in the security 
 had been omitted by mistake will not estop them from 
 applying to the proper court for rectification of the 
 mortgage security 9 . The "security" which must be 
 mentioned in the proof has been construed to mean 
 what are usually called securities, although it may 
 subsequently turn out that they are not subsisting 
 securities 10 . 
 
 122 ; and see notes to section 45 as to rules with respect to proof of 
 secured creditors. 
 
 'In re Burr ex parte Clarice (1892), 67 L. T. 465; In re Safety 
 Explosives, Ltd. (1904), 1 .Ch. 226; 73 L. J. Ch. 184; 11 Mans. 76; 
 In re King ex parte Mesham (1885), 2 Mor. 119; and see In re Rowe 
 ex parte West Coast Ooldfields, Ltd. (1904), 2 K. B. 489; 73 L. J. 
 K. B. 852, where' it was held that there had been an election. Under 
 the English practice if a creditor proves in respect of part of a debt 
 covered by a security, and votes, he is deemed to have surrendered the 
 whole security ; and he cannot by subsequent proof for these debts make 
 any claim to be entitled to the value of this security : In re Pawson ex 
 parte Trustee (1917), 2 K. B. 527; 86 L. J. K. B. 1285; (1917), H 
 B. K. 87. 
 
 7 In re and esa parte Piers (1898) , 1 Q. B. 627 ; 67 L. J. Q. B. 519 ; 
 5 Mans. 97. 
 
 8 S. C. 
 
 9 Cameron v. Kerr (1876) , 23 Gr. 374. 
 
 10 As for example a bill of exchange or acceptance by the debtor : 
 In re Ruthen ex parte Kidd (1898), 5 Mans 227, and see Ex parte Ash- 
 worth in re Eoare (1874), L. K. 18 Eq. 705 ; 43 L. J. Bank. 143. But 
 bills of exchange indorsed by a customer to his banker in order that 
 they may be discounted and held by the banker " pending discount." x.e , 
 pending inquiries as to the solvency of the acceptors, the banker mean- 
 while making some advances to the customer on the credit of the bills, 
 are not securities which the banker is bound to value ; for the bills no 
 longer remain part of the customer's estate : Ex parte Schofield in re 
 Firth (1879), 12 Ch. D. 337; 48 L. J. Bank. 122; as explained in Daw- 
 son v. Isle (1906), 1 Ch. 633; 75 Ii .J. Ch. 338. It has been held that 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 409 
 
 The established practice in bankruptcy is that a Section 42 
 creditor who holds a bill of exchange as security must sec. 42(H). 
 produce the bill both when he comes to prove his de'bt ^ e s fp°o. 
 and also when he comes to receive a dividend. If byducebiiiof 
 some accident a creditor is unable to produce his exc ange " 
 security the judge has a discretion in the matter 1 . 
 
 On an appeal from a rejection of a proof the debtor Sec. 42(12). 
 has no locus standi to appear and cross examine the p^f on - of 
 creditor 2 . 
 
 The debtor 's statement of affairs should be ready statement 
 for presentation to the first meeting. See section 54. °- f affairs - 
 
 Section 42(14), provides that su'bjeet to the pro- Sec. 42(14). 
 visions of the Act all questions at meeting of creditors 
 shall be decided by resolution carried by the majority 
 of votes. It was decided under sections 14 and 20 of 
 the Act of 1869, that even where there was no fraud 
 in the passing of a resolution, yet if the majority of 
 the creditors voted not simply with the view of admin- 
 istering the estate in the best way for the benefit of 
 all the creditors, but with the view of favouring the 
 debtor or other persons whom he was alleged fraudu- 
 lently to have preferred, the court had jurisdiction to 
 direct the trustee to disregard the resolution 3 . When 
 at a meeting of creditors there is not present a majority 
 of all the creditors the supposition is that the absentees 
 are prepared to accept the opinion of the majority of 
 those present*. 
 
 a banker in such ease is entitled to prove for the full amount due to him, 
 and also to recover what he can from the other parties to the bills, pro- 
 vided he does not receive in the whole more than 20s. in the pound: Ea> 
 ■parte Schofield in re Firth, supra. 
 
 1 Ex parte Jacobs in re Carter (1874), L R. 17 Eq. 575; 43 L. J. 
 Bank. 46, and see Ex parte Ashworth in re Hoare (1874) , L. R. 18 Eq. 
 705 ; 43 L. J. Bank. 143. 
 
 2 In re Knight ex parte Smith (1884) , 1 Mor. 74 ; and see further as 
 to appeal from the Chairman's decision : Em parte Valentine in re Smith 
 (1910), W. N. 23; 54 Sol. J. 215. 
 
 "Ex parte Cocks in re Poole (1882). 21 Ch. D. 397; 52 L. J. Ch. 
 63; and see In re and ex parte Page (1876), 2 Oh. D, 323; Ex parte 
 Strawbridge in re Hickman (1883), 25 Ch. D. 266; 53 L. J. Ch. 323. 
 See as to the relationship between court and liquidator: In re Albert 
 Life Assurance Co. (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 381; In re East of England 
 Banking Co., Pearson's Case (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 309; In re Sun Litho- 
 graphing Co. (1893), 24 O. R. 200, and see supra notes to section 
 42(2). 
 
 l La Banque d'Echange du Canada v. Campbell (1885), 15 R. L. 373. 
 
410 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 43 
 
 Appointment 
 of inspectors, 
 revocation 
 and remu- 
 neration. 
 
 Inspectors' 
 fees. 
 
 Inspector 
 may not 
 acquire 
 property. 
 
 Inspectors. 
 
 43 (1) At the first or a subsequent meeting the 
 creditors shall appoint one or more, but not 
 exceeding five, inspectors of the "administra- 
 tion by the trustee of the estate of the 
 debtor. 
 
 (2) The powers of inspectors may be exercised 
 by a majority of them. 
 
 (3) The creditors may, at any meeting, revoke 
 the appointment of any inspector and in 
 such event or in case of the death, resigna- 
 tion, or absence from the province of an 
 inspector, may appoint another in his stead. 
 
 (4) Each inspector may be repaid his actual 
 and necessary travelling expenses incurred 
 in and about the performance of his duties, 
 and may also be paid the following fees: — - 
 
 Fee per 
 
 _ meeting. 
 
 Estates with assets below? 5,000 $2.00 
 
 ' from 5,000 to $ 15,000. . 3.00 
 
 15,000 to 30,000.. 4.00 
 
 30,000 to 50,000.. 5.00 
 
 50,000 to 100,000.. 7.50 
 
 " . 100,000 and over 10.00 
 
 (5) In the event of an equal division of opinion 
 at a meeting of inspectors, the opinion of 
 any absent inspector shall be sought in order 
 to resolve the difference, and in the case of 
 a difference which cannot be so resolved it 
 shall be resolved by the trustee, unless it 
 concerns his personal conduct or interest. 
 
 (6) No inspector shall be capable of, directly or 
 indirectly, purchasing or acquiring for him- 
 self or for another any of the property of the 
 estate for which he is an inspector, unless 
 with the prior approval of the court. 
 
 Cross References Act: Meetings of creditors, 42 ; powers exer- 
 cisable with permission of inspectors, 20, 21, and see 17(3) ; jurisdic- 
 tion of court where body of persons and court given alternative powers, 
 88a. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: Canadian Acts, 1875, s. 35; 1869. s. 34; 
 English Acts, 1914, s. 20; 1913, s. 17; 1883, s. 22; 1890, s. 5; Ontario 
 Assignments Act, 1914, ss. 22, 37. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 411 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Inspectors under English Act. Section 43 
 
 Inspector is in a fiduciary relation to creditors. 
 
 A trustee may not make any profit out of Ms trust. 
 Inspector in employ of proposed solicitor to trustee. 
 Fees where fault in election of inspector. 
 Inspectors for joint and separate estate. 
 
 Subsection 43(4) is in the form in which it was 
 enacted by The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act 192'0 5 . 
 Section 43(6) was first enacted by section 36 of The 
 Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act 1921. 
 
 Under the English Act only a creditor or a holder inspectors 
 of a general proxy or a general power of attorney iJshAct. ng 
 from a creditor is qualified to act as a member of the 
 committee of inspection 6 . Under the English Act of 
 1883, it was held that the only creditor could not 
 appoint himself a committee of inspection, and that 
 therefore the authorization of such creditor did not 
 empower the trustee to employ a solicitor''. It should 
 be noted, however, that under that Act a committee of 
 inspection consisted of not more than five nor less 
 than three members 8 , and that where there was no com- 
 mittee of inspection any permission required to be 
 given by the committee of inspection might be given 
 by the Board of Trade 9 . Under section 91 of the Eng- 
 lish Companies Act 1862, the court has an almost 
 unlimited power as to ordering meetings of creditors 
 or contributories to be summoned; and may exercise 
 this power where a large creditor has not been repre- 
 sented among the inspectors by reason of the fact 
 that his claim was not proved at the time of the first 
 meeting of creditors 10 . 
 
 The inspectors represent all the creditors and 
 should perform their duties impartially 11 . 
 
 •The previous subsection read: "(4) Each inspector may be repaid 
 his actual and necessary travelling expenses incurred in and about the 
 performance of his duties, and such sums only." 
 
 "Section 20(2) and see In re Jones ex parte Ooatly (1911), 56 Sol. 
 J. 17. 
 
 1 In re Geiger (1915). W. N. 7. 
 
 "Section 22(1). 
 
 ' Section 22(9). 
 
 ™ In re Radford, Bright & Go. (1901) , 1 Oh. 272, 735. 
 
 "See Imperial Bank of Canada v. Barber (1921), 1 C. B. R 485" 
 20 O. W. N. 252 (Middleton, J.). 
 
412 
 
 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 43 An inspector, though not an express trustee, is in 
 inspector is a fiduciary relation to the general body, of creditors, 
 ?n a fiduciary an( j ma y no t become a purchaser of any part of the 
 creditors, estate, except upon the condition of making full dis- 
 closure of all material facts within his knowledge;, 
 giving full credit for the value of his bargain; and 
 obtaining the consent of the creditors 1 . Nor it seems 
 can the inspectors give the trustee permission to pur- 
 chase 2 . But where the proposed transaction is for 
 the benefit of the creditors the court may sanc- 
 tion the sale of the property of the bankrupt to the 
 nominee of an intended company notwithstanding the 
 fact that the trustee and inspectors have been con- 
 cerned in the promotion of the company, and may be 
 interested in it as shareholders, directors and officers 3 . 
 Such sanction must be given before the business from 
 which the profit is to be derived is undertaken; it can- 
 not be given after the profit has been derived 4 . As 
 there may not be a sale to a partner "of a trustee 5 , so 
 it seems there may not be a sale to a partner of an 
 inspector, there being no rule under The Bankruptcy 
 Act) which would permit of such a decision as that 
 given in In re and ex parte GaUard B . 
 
 It is a well established rule that a trustee who is a 
 
 solicitor cannot make any profits as a solicitor on busi- 
 
 w^r °^ o£ ness done by himself or by his firm in matters' relating 
 
 to the estate; but from this rule an exception has been 
 
 established by Cradock v. Piper 7 , that is to say that 
 
 1 Taylor v. Davies (1920), A. C. 636, 647; and see Gastonguay v. 
 Savoie (18990, 29 S. C. R. 613 ; Segsworth v. Anderson (1895). 24 S. C. 
 R. 699 ; Morrison v. Watts (1892), 19 O. A. R. 622, 631; In re Canada 
 Woollen Mills (Long's Appeal) (1905), 9 O. L. R. 367; 5 O. W. K. 
 265; 24 0. L. T. 396; Thompson v. Clarkson (1891), 21 O. R. 421; 
 Brigham v. Banque Jacques C artier (1900) , 30 S. C. R. 429; Cartier v. 
 Genser (1902), 22 C. L. T. Occ. N. 416; as to an exceptional case see 
 Shantz v. Clarkson (1913), 4 O. W. N. 1303. 
 
 ' Morrison v. Watts, supra, a case under The Ontario Assignments 
 Act where, however, the inspectors do not occupy the same position as 
 under The Bankruptcy Act. See sec. 27(d). 
 
 8 Ex parte Slater in re Spink (No. 1), 108 L. T. 572. 
 
 *Ex parte and in re Gallard (No. 1) (1896), 1 Q. B. 68; 65 L. J. 
 Q. B. 199 ; 2 Mans. 515. 
 
 °E® parte Moore (1882), 51 L J. Oh. 72. 
 
 ' (1897), 2 Q. B. 8; 66 L. J. Q. B. 484; 4 Mans. 52, where it was 
 held that Rule 316 of the Bankruptcy Rules of .1886 permitted a sale to 
 the partner of a member of the committee of inspection. 
 
 ' (1850) , 1 Mac. & G. 664 ; L. J. 19 Bq. 107. 
 
 A trustee 
 may not 
 make any 
 
 his trust 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 413 
 
 where work is done in a suit not on behalf of the trustee Section 43 
 who is a solicitor, alone, but on behalf of other parties 
 or of himself and his co-trustee, the rule will not pre- 
 vent the solicitor or his firm from receiving the usual 
 costs if the costs of appearing for and acting for the 
 two trustees have not increased the expense over that 
 which would have been incurred if he or his firm had 
 appeared only for his co-trustee 8 . Thus in winding 
 up proceedings a director is entitled to profit costs in 
 respect of cases in court conducted by him as solicitor 
 of the company, that is as solicitor for himself and his 
 co-directors ; but not in respect of business done out of 
 court 9 . The general rule is that a solicitor who is one 
 of the inspectors, and who does work for the estate 
 in .his professional capacity cannot receive more than 
 his out-of-pocket disbursements. He is not entitled to 
 include a proportion of his general office expenses as 
 part of his disbursements 10 . Similarly an inspector 
 who furnished paper to a newspaper which was being 
 carried on under a creditor's deed, was only allowed 
 to charge the cost price 1 . 
 
 Where one of the inspectors is the managing clerk inspector in 
 of a solicitor it has been held in England that it would p^ppLd* 
 on general principles be improper to appoint the solici- solicitor to 
 tor to be solicitor to the trustee in the bankruptcy 2 . 
 
 Semble, in the absence of fraud an inspector is Fees where 
 entitled to be paid his fees and expenses in spite of the ef^on of 
 fact that the proofs of those who elected him trustee inspector, 
 have been subsequently expunged 3 . 
 
 The English Eule 294, provides that: "Each set inspectors 
 of separate creditors may appoint its own committee and^rate 
 of inspection, but if any set of separate creditors do estate. 
 
 "In re Corsellis, Lawton v. Elwes (1887), 37 Ch. D. 675; Strachan 
 v. Ruttan (1892), 15 P. R. 109, distinguishing Smith v. Graham, 2 U C 
 Q. B. 268. 
 
 8 In re Mimico Sewer Pipe & Brick Mfg Co., Pearson's Case 26 
 O. R. 289. 
 
 10 Ex parte and in re Gallard (No. 1) (1896), supra; in re Mimico 
 Sewer Pipe & Brick Mfg. Co., Pearson's Case, supra; and see Collins v 
 Carey (1839), 2 Beav. 128; Christophers v. White (1847), 10 Beav. 
 523; and see cages collected in Stones v. Parker (1846), 9 Beav 385 
 388 note (a). 
 
 1 Chaplin v. Young (1864), 33 Beavan 414. 
 
 2 Ex parte and in re Gallard (No. 1) (1896), supra. 
 'In re Jones ex parte Goatly (1911), 56 Sol. J. 17. 
 
414 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 44 not appoint a separate committee, the committee (if 
 any) appointed by the joint creditors shall be deemed 
 to have been appointed also by such separate credi- 
 tors." There is no similar rule under The Bankruptcy 
 Act. Prior to the Acts of 1849 and 1861, it was the 
 practice when proper application had been made for 
 that purpose for the court to permit a meeting of the 
 separate creditors to nominate inspectors to protect 
 the interest of the separate creditors*. That jurisdic- 
 tion continued in England under the Act of 1861 5 . Eule 
 60 which permits the trustee to pay such costs and 
 charges as cannot be paid out of the joint estate out of 
 the separate estates "with the consent of the inspectors 
 of the estates out of which the payment is intended to 
 be made" seems to contemplate inspectors for each 
 estate 6 . 
 
 Debts Provable. 
 Debts 44. n ) Demands in the nature of unliquidated 
 
 provable. \ ' . . . ,. , ^ 
 
 damages arising otherwise than by reason 
 of a contract, promise, or breach of trust, 
 shall not be provable in bankruptcy or in 
 proceedings under an authorized assign- 
 ment. 
 
 (2) Save as aforesaid, all debts and liabilities, 
 present or future, to which the debtor is sub- 
 ject at the date of the receiving order or the 
 making of the authorized assignment or to 
 which he may become subject before his 
 discharge by reason of any obligation in- 
 curred before the date of the receiving order 
 or of the making of the authorized assign- 
 ment, shall be deemed to be debts provable 
 in bankruptcy or in proceedings under an 
 authorized assignment. 
 
 (3) The court shall value, at the time and in 
 the summary manner prescribed by General 
 
 'Ex parte Wilson (1840). 1 M. D. & D. 68; Mm parte Wright 
 (1841), 2 M. D. & D. 434, and see Em parte Miles (1814), 2 Rose 68. 
 °Ex» parte Melbourne (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 835 ; 25 L. T. N. S. 368. 
 "Also see Rule 114. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 415 
 
 Rules, all contingent claims and all such section 44 
 claims for unliquidated damages as are — 
 authorized by this section, and after, but not 
 before, such valuation, every such claim 
 shall for all purposes of this Act, be deemed 
 a proved debt to the amount of its valuation. 
 
 Cross References Act: Proof of debts, 45 ; proof by secured 
 creditors, 46 ; disallowance of claims, 53 ; debts payable at a future time, 
 50 ; interest. 49 ; proof in certain cases under marriage contracts, etc., 
 29(2) (3) ; restricted creditors, 48. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Valuation of contingent or unliquidated 
 claims, 119. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Proof of debt, 47; proof of debt of 
 workmen or others, 48. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts, 1914, s. 30; 1883. s. 37; 
 1869, s. 31 ; Canadian Acts, 1875, ss. 80, 81 ; 1869, 56, 57 ; Winding-up 
 Act (1906), s. 69. 
 
 Analysis op Notes. 
 
 Claims not provable in bankruptcy are of two classes — . 
 
 First class. 
 
 Second class. 
 Valuation of contingent claims and claims for unliquidated damages. 
 Effect of valuation. 
 Contingent claims — • 
 
 Separation annuity. 
 
 Alimony. 
 Section 44(2) — 
 
 LiaVlities. 
 
 Double proof against one estate. 
 
 Right of surety on payment to stand in place of principal 
 creditor. 
 
 Rule of construction as to liability of surety for whole debt or 
 for part 
 
 Proof against different estates for same debt. 
 
 Bill holder may only prove for residue of debt in certain cases. 
 
 Proof against estate of surety. 
 
 Mutual accounts of dishonoured bills. 
 
 Bill security for larger sum than debt. 
 
 Guarantee of payment of interest. 
 
 Costs. 
 
 A penalty. 
 
 Debts founded on voluntary deeds. 
 
 Debts and liabilities accruing subsequently to receiving order. 
 
 Proof by cestuis que trust. 
 
 Interest. 
 
 No right of proof between mortgagee and assignee of equity of 
 redemption. 
 
 Statute of limitations. 
 
 Partnership debt incurred by fraud. 
 
 Section 44 differs in two respects from section 30 of 
 the present English Act. In England a person having 
 
416 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 44 notice of any act of bankruptcy available against the 
 "debtor may not prove for any debt or liability con- 
 tracted by tbe debtor subsequently to the date of his 
 so having notice 7 . The second point of difference is 
 that under the English Act, if the court is of the opin- 
 ion that the value of a debt or liability is incapable 
 of being fairly estimated, the court may make an order 
 to that effect, and thereupon the debt is deemed to be a 
 debt not provable in bankruptcy. Under The Bank- 
 ruptcy Act there is no such latitude. The result will 
 be that when the debtor obtains his discharge he will, 
 subject to section 61, be freed from all contingent 
 claims and demands in the nature of unliquidated 
 damages, except those arising otherwise than by rea- 
 son of a contract promise or breach of trust. 
 
 Certain kinds of claims are not provable in bank- 
 ruptcy. These fall into two classes : those which may 
 not be proved by reason of the general policy of the 
 law; and those which The Bankruptcy Act has excluded 
 from proof 8 . With respect to the first class it is clear 
 that a debt founded on an illegal consideration can- 
 not be proved in bankruptcy 9 - Thus: money paid for 
 the purpose of perfecting a fraud on the creditors can- 
 not be the subject of proof against the debtor's estate 10 ; 
 and where a creditor executes a composition deed and 
 secretly stipulates for a preference he may not prove, 
 even for his original debt which by the terms of the 
 deed he has released 1 . Although a claim for the recov- 
 ery of money won by betting cannot be proved in 
 England in bankruptcy by reason of 8 & 9 Vic. c. 109, 
 s. 18, declaring wagers on horse racing to be void, yet 
 where a new contract arises out of this transaction 
 
 Claims not 
 provable in 
 bankruptcy 
 are of two 
 classes. 
 First class. 
 
 'Section 30(2). 
 
 8 See also the rules limiting proof in partnership cases which are 
 treated in the notes to section 53. Restricted creditors may prove; as 
 may secured creditors if they comply with the Act. See notes to sections 
 48 and 46. 
 
 "Ex parte 8chmaUng in re Adettert (1817), Buck. 93, where the 
 demand arose out of an attempt to carry on trade with an enemy's 
 country in war time. 
 
 10 In re and ex parte Myers (1908) , 1 K. B. 941 ; 77 L. J. K. B. 
 386 ; 15 Mans. 85. 
 
 1 Ex parte OUoer in re Hodgson (1850), 4 DeG. & S. 354; In re 
 Cross (1848), 4 DeG. & S. 364ra; Ex parte Phillips (1888), 36 W. B. 
 567. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 417 
 
 and the new contract is not tainted with illegality, but Section 44 
 is for good consideration, the claim may it seems be ~ 
 proved 2 . Even if a person who has been injured by a 
 felony is not allowed by the policy of the law to prove 
 in the bankruptcy of the felon if he has failed in his 
 duty of bringing or endeavouring to bring the felon 
 to justice, the obligation to prosecute does not extend 
 to his trustee in bankruptcy who, it has been said, in 
 this case represents creditors 3 . 
 
 The second class of claim is that which The Bank- second class. 
 ruptcy Act has excluded from proof, namely demands 
 in the nature of unliquidated damages arising other- 
 wise than by reason of a contract promise or breach 
 of trust 4 . Where the claim is in. tort, there can be no 
 proof unless the damages become liquidated before the 
 date of the receiving order. They become liquidated 
 by judgment, award 5 or compromise 6 , but not by ver- 
 dict only 7 . But the liability of a trustee for breach of 
 trust is considered in bankruptcy as a liability arising 
 from a contract and not from what has been called 
 a pure tort 8 , or as an equitable debt or liability in the 
 nature of a debt 9 . Similarly a claim for unliquidated 
 
 2 Hyams v. Stuart King (1908), 2 K. B. 686; 77 L. J. K. B. 794; 
 Bulb v. Yelverton, L. R. 9 Eq. 471 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 428. 
 
 'Per Bramwell and James, L.J., in Ex parte Ball in re Shepherd 
 (1879), 10 Ch. D. 667; 48 L. J. Bank. 57. The judgment of Baggallay, 
 L.J. was to the effect that the trustee is in no better position than the 
 bankrupt. See Chapter VI., ante. 
 
 4 Section 44(1). Under The Insolvent Act of 1864 claims for 
 unliquidated damages ar'sing out of breach of contract were not prov- 
 able : Burrowes v. De Blaquiere (1874), 34 U. C. Q. B. 498. 
 
 " See Fix parte Harding in re Pickering (1854), 23 L. J. Bank 22- 
 
 5 D. M. & G. 367. 
 
 8 Fas parte Mumford (1808), 15 Ves. 289. 
 
 ''Ex parte Stone in re Giles (1889), 61 L. T. 82; 37 W. R. 261; 
 
 6 Mor. 158; In re Newman ex parte Brooke (1876), 3 Ch. D. 494; 46 
 L. J. Bank. 57, but the successful defendant's costs of an action founded 
 on contract thoush not taxed until after adjudication are within the 
 scope of section 44(2) and are provable; Ex parte Peacock (1872), I,. 
 R. 8 Ch. 682 ; 42 L. J. Bank. 78 ; as explained in In re Newman ex parte 
 Brooke, supra. 
 
 'Emma Silver Mining Co. v. Grant (1880), 17 Ch. D. 122, 130; 50 
 L. J. Ch". 449, and see notes to section 47. 
 
 9 Per James, L J., *n Ex> parte Adamson in re Collie (1878) , 8 Ch 
 D. 807: 47 L. J. Bank. 103. In that case Bramwell, L.J., put it, 
 " Because I suppose trustees are held to undertake, simply and severally 
 for the performance of their duties," and see In re Parker ex parte 
 Sheppard (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 84, 87. 
 
 B.C.— 27 
 
418 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 44 damages for a fraudulent representation on the sale 
 of a chattel is considered' to be based on an obligation 
 arising out of the contract of sale, and not out of a 
 personal tort 1 ". 
 
 Therefore if a man is guilty of a fraudulent con- 
 tract or breach of trust, and by that means gets into 
 his own pocket the money of the person who has been 
 defrauded, that person may prove for the amount which 
 has thus come into the hands of the fraudulent party 1 , 
 but where there is no contract between the parties, 
 or where the benefit of the fraud has not gone into 
 the pocket of the bankrupt, the claim is not provable 
 unless judgment was obtained before the date of the 
 receiving order 2 . But there may be proof against the 
 estate of a fraudulent promoter for secret profits 
 received on the promotion of a company where the 
 promoters have concealed their identity under the name 
 of a corporation formed by them, the corporation being 
 only an "alias" for them, and the provisions of the 
 Companies Act not having been complied with 3 . Where 
 a patentee is entitled to recover the amount of profits 
 made by an infringement of his patent his claim is a 
 provable demand, for the amount of the profits is 
 recoverable as money had and received to his use and 
 not in the nature of damages 4 , but a cause of action 
 for damages for false representation is not a provable 
 demand 5 . 
 
 Section 44(3), provides for the valuation in the 
 manner prescribed by general Eules 6 of all contingent 
 
 ™ Jack v. Kipping (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 113; 51 L. J. Q. B. 463; and 
 see Tilley v. Bowman, Ltd. (1910), 1 K. B. 745; 79 L. J. K. B. 547; 
 17 Mans. 97. 
 
 *Ex parte Adamson in re ColUe (1878), 8 Ch. D. 807; 47 L. J. 
 Bank. 103; Jack v Kipping (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 113; 51 L. J. Q. B. 
 463. 
 
 2 In re Giles ex parte Stone (1889), 6 Mor. 158, a case of a director 
 being sued for misrepresentations' in a prospectus, and see notes to 
 section 47. 
 
 3 In re Darby ex narte Brougham (1911), 1 K. B. 95; 80 L. J. 
 K. B. 180 ; 18 Mans. 10. 
 
 4 Watson v. Holliday (1882), 20 Ch. D. 780; 52 L. J. Oh. 543. 
 "Ex parte Baum in re Edwards (1874), I,, B. 9 Oh. 673; 44 L. J. 
 
 Bank. 25. 
 
 See Rule 119. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 419 
 
 claims 7 , and all such claims for unliquidated damages Section 44 
 as are authorized by the section. This is one of the valuation of 
 important provisions of the Act. As a bankrupt 's ^msfnd 
 discharge only frees him from debts provable in his claims for 
 bankruptcy, and as the older bankruptcy Statutes con- damages 3 e 
 tained no provision for the valuation of claims for 
 unliquidated damages or of contingent claims the bank- 
 rupt obtained a very imperfect discharge 8 . The object 
 of present day bankruptcy legislation, is that the bank- 
 rupt is to b& a freed man — freed not only from debts, 
 but from contracts, liabilities, engagements and con- 
 tingencies of every kind 9 . 
 
 The English Act, as has been indicated above, per- 
 mits the court to declare that the value of a debt or , 
 liability is incapable of being fairly estimated, but 
 this provision, it would seem, will be only sparingly 
 resorted to 10 ; and The Bankruptcy Act has no such 
 provision. 
 
 It is only after valuation that contingent claims and Effect of 
 claims for unliquidated damages are deemed to be valuatl0n - 
 proved debts to the amount of their valuation. A 
 creditor may not vote until his debt is proved 1 , and 
 dividends are only to be distributed to those who have 
 proved 2 . 
 
 7 The English Act says definitely that contingent claims are prov- 
 able. The words " certain or contingent " have been omitted from 
 section 44(2) of The Bankruptcy Act. But section 44(3) appears to 
 indicate that contingent claims are provable. 
 
 s Prior to the Act 6 Geo. IV. u. 16, contingent claims couM not be 
 proved. Nearly eighty years before that time Lord Hardwicke expressed 
 a wish (1 Atk. 120) in which Lord Eldon afterwards concurred (9 Ves. 
 112) " that some gentleman might thank of a clause which nr'ght remedy 
 and settle the matter for the future." From that time until 1869 tEe 
 Legislature in England was engaged in the effort to exhaust every con- 
 ceivable possibility of liability under which a bankrupt m'ght be. and 
 to make it provable in bankruptcy against his estate so that the bank- 
 rupt might be relieved for the future from any liability in respect thereof: 
 per Halsbury, L.C., in Hardy v. Fothergill (1888), 13 A. C. 351, at 356; 
 58 L. J. Q. B. 44. 
 
 9 Eav parte Lynvi Goal and Iron Co. in re Hide (1871) L. R. 7 Ch. 
 28, per James, L.J., at page 32 ; 41 L. J. Bank. 5. 
 
 10 " The provision for the possibility of the court thinking that the 
 value of the debt or liability was incapable of being fairly estimated must 
 have been inserted em majori cautela — and it is to be observed that the 
 section only speaks of an estimate being made of the value not of a 
 valuation," per Bramwell, L.J., in Ex parte Neal in re Batey (1880), 14 
 Ch. P. 579, at 584. 
 
 'Section 42(9). 2 See section 37(1). 
 
420 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 44 
 
 Contingent 
 claims. 
 Separation 
 annuity. 
 
 Alimony. 
 
 However difficult it may be to measure the liability 
 ' incurred by a husband under a separation deed which 
 provides an annuity for the wife (the annuity ceasing 
 when co-habitation is resumed), still that is a liability 
 provable in bankruptcy 3 , but future weekly or monthly 
 payments of alimony payable by virtue of an order 
 of the Divorce Court are not so provable 4 . It has also 
 been held 5 that although arrears of alimony payable 
 under such an order constitute a debt enforceable under 
 section 5 of The Debtors Act 1869 6 , there can be no 
 proof either for arrears payable at the date of the 
 receiving order or for arrears which have-become due 
 since the receiving order 7 . While damages which have 
 been awarded to a petitioner in the Divorce Court, 
 and have been ordered to be paid into court, will not 
 support a bankruptcy petition against the co-respond- 
 ent 8 , they are a debt provable in bankruptcy 9 . A 
 surety has a right of proof in respect of his contingent 
 liability as surety 10 . The contingent liability of an 
 acceptor of a bill of exchange, which has been dis- 
 honoured, to damages to the foreign drawer in the 
 nature of re-exhange is a debt provable in bankruptcy 1 , 
 
 3 Victor v. Victor (1912) , 1 K. B. 247 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 354 ; 19 Mans. 
 53; Ex parte Bates in re Pannell (1879), 11 Ch. 914; 48 L. J. Bank. 
 113 ; Ex parte Keal in re Batey (1880), 14 Ch. D. 579. 
 
 * Linton v. Linton (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 239; 54 L. J. Q. B. 529; 
 
 2 Mor. 179. 
 
 5 Per Hawkins, and Vaughan Williams, J J., Wright. ,1., diss. 
 
 "Linton v. Linton (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 239; 34 L. J. Q. B. 529; 2 
 Mor. 179. 
 
 ' Kerr v. Kerr .(1897), 2 Q. B. 439; 66 L. J. Q. B. 838 ; 4 Mans. 
 267; see In re Stillwell, Broderick v. Stillwell (1916), 1 Oh. 365. 
 
 "In re and ex parte Muirhead (1876), 2 Ch. D. 22; 45 L. J. 
 Bank. 65. 
 
 8 In re Giles ex parte Stone (1889), 6 Mor. 158. 
 
 10 In re Paine ex parte Read (1897) , 1 Q. B. 122 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 71 ; 
 
 3 Mans. 309; In re Blackpool Motor Gar Co., Ltd. (1901), 1 Ch. 77; 
 70 L. J. Ch. 61; 8 Mans. 193; In re Harepath and Delmar (1890), 7 
 Mor. 129; Wolmershansen v. Gullich (1893). 2 Ch. 514; In re Strat- 
 ford Fuel, Ice and Construction Co., Coughlin and Irwin's Clam 
 (1913), 28 O. L. R. 481; 13 D. L. R. 64, affd.; 50 S. C. R. 100; 28 
 
 . D. L. R. 437, and see as to a possible liability at the end of a lease on a 
 covenant to indemnify: Hardy V. Fothergill (1888), 13 A. C. 351; 58 
 L. J. Q. B. 44 ; a liability or obligation for the payment of money out of 
 the estate of the debtor after his death: Barnett v King (1891), 1 Ch. 4; 
 60 L. J. Ch. 148 ; 7 Mor. 267 ; a liability under a covenant in a marriage 
 settlement to transfer after-acquired property to trustees': In re Reis 
 ex parte Clough (1904) , 2 K. B. 769 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 929 ; 11 Mans. 229. 
 1 In re Gillespie ex parte Robarts (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 286; 56 L. 3. 
 Q. B. 74. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 421 
 
 as is a shareholder's liability in respect of future calls Section 44 
 in a company-. If the company fails to prove in the ~~ 
 bankruptcy and 1 the shareholder obtains his discharge 
 he cannot afterwards be placed on the list of contribu- 
 tories 3 . 
 
 The provisions of section 44(2) are very wide. The See. 44(2). 
 word liabilities is not denned in the Act, but the cor- LlablIlties - 
 responding English section* contains the following 
 definition. 
 
 30(8) "Liability" shall for the purposes of this Act include — 
 
 (a) any compensation for work or labour done; 
 
 (6) any obligation or possibility of an obligation to pay money 
 or money's worth on the breach of any express or implied covenant, 
 contract, agreement, or undertaking, whether the breach does or 
 does not occur, or is or is not likely to occur or capable of occurring, 
 before the discharge of the debtor; 
 
 (c). generally, any express or implied engagement, agreement, 
 or undertaking, to pay, or capable of resulting in the payment of 
 money, or money's worth; whether the payment is, as respects 
 amount, fixed or unliquidated; as respects time,- present or future, 
 certain or dependent on any one contingency or on two or more 
 contingencies; as to mode of valuation, capable of being ascertained 
 by fixed rules or as matter of opinion. 
 
 Section 50 deals with proof of debts payable at a 
 future time. 
 
 Wide though the provisions of the subsection are 
 they are subject to certain rules which have been 
 developed in the Bankruptcy Court. Among the most 
 important of these are the rule against double proof 
 and the rules with respect to proofs by holders of 
 bills of exchange and sureties. 
 
 The principle of what has been called the rule Double proof 
 against double proof is that an insolvent estate ought ag t al t nst one 
 not to pay two dividends in respect of the same debt 5 . 
 
 2 In re Mercantile Mutual Marine Association (1883), 25 Ch. D. 
 415 ; 53 h. J. Ch. 593. 
 
 s In re Mercantile Mutual Marine Association, supra, and see as to 
 question of disclaimer of the stock by the trustee: In re Ballett em 
 parte National Insurance Co. (1894), 1 Mans 380; Denison v. Smith 
 (18781, 43 II. C. Q. B. 503. Where such proof has been made and a 
 dividend paid to a company which goes into voluntary liquidation and 
 there is a surplus of assets in the liquidation the bankrupt's shares are 
 not to be treated as fully paid up shares for the purpose of the d'striba- 
 tion of the surplus assets: Re West Coast Gold Fields, Ltd. (1906), 1 
 Ch. 1 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 23 ; 12 Mans. 414. 
 
 'Section 30. 
 
 5 In re Oriental Commercial Bank ex parte The European Bank 
 (1871), L. R. 7 Ch. 99; 41 L. J. Ch. 217. 
 
422 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 44 Therefore there must not be double proof , that is to 
 say double ranking or effective proof so as to compel 
 payment of two dividends in respect of the same debt*, 
 and in considering whether two proofs are with respect 
 to the same debt regard must be had not to technicali- 
 ties, but to the substance 8 . Thus if an acceptor.accepts 
 bills for the accommodation of the drawer and the 
 drawer enters into a contract express or implied that 
 he will provide for the bills when they become due, and 
 then the drawer becomes bankrupt, there cannot be a 
 double proof against his estate, namely one proof by 
 the holder of the bill and the other proof by the 
 acceptor of the bill on the contract of indemnity 9 . 
 If it were not so a creditor could always manage 
 by getting his debtor to enter into several distinct con- 
 tracts with different persons for the same debt to 
 obtain higher dividends than other creditors, and per- 
 haps get his debt paid in full 10 . Consequently where 
 a debtor had charged to mortgagees certain property, 
 and conveyed the equity-of redemption of the property 
 to his wife, covenanting with her to discharge the mort- 
 gage debt, and the mortgagees were admitted to rank 
 for dividend against the estate, the wife was not 
 allowed to prove 1 . But a compromise by secured credi- 
 tors with a liquidator of a company whereby the securi- 
 ties in the hands of the creditors are declared valid 
 the creditors reserving their rights against the sure- 
 ties and undertaking not to rank on the estate will not 
 prevent sureties, who are called upon by the creditors 
 to pay, from ranking on the estate 2 . 
 
 "In re Melton. Milk v. Towers (1918), 1 Ch. 37. 
 
 ' In re Stratford Fuel, Ice and Construction Co., Goughlin and 
 Irwin's Claim (1913), 28 O. L. R. 481; 13 D. L. R. 64; affd. 50 S. C. K. 
 100 ; 28 D. L. R. 437. And proof by a surety who has been compelled to 
 pay the full debt is not such objectionable double proof: Re Stratford' 
 Fuel, Ice and Construction Co,, supra. 
 
 8 In re Melton, Milk v. Towers, supra, at p. 60. 
 
 In re Oriental Commercial Bank ex parte The European Bank, 
 supra. 
 
 10 In re Oriental Commercial Bank ex parte The European Bank, 
 supra 
 
 1 In re and ex- parte Hoey (1919), 88 L. J. K. B. 273, and see 
 In re Oriental Commercial Bank ex parte European Bank (1871), L. K. 
 7 Ch. 99 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 217 ; Deering v. Bank of Ireland (1886), 12 A. 0. 
 20 ; 56 L. J. P. C. 47 ; In re Moss ex parte Hallett (1905) , 2 K. B. 307 ; 
 74 L. J. K. B. 764 ; 12 Mans. 227. 
 i * In re Stratford Fuel, Ice and Construction Co., supra. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 423 
 
 Where a surety for a debtor who has become Se ction 44 
 bankrupt pays the whole of the debt for which he is Right of 
 liable as between himself and the principal creditor, ^etyon^ 
 the right of proof which the principal creditor would stand m 
 have had becomes pro tanto the right of proof by the principal 
 surety 3 ; and if the principal creditor has received a credltor - 
 dividend with respect to that right of proof, he becomes 
 trustee for the surety for the amount of the dividend 
 which he has so received 4 . Similarly where a surety 
 who is liable for the part of a debt has paid the whole 
 of what he is liable for, he ^s entitled to stand in the 
 place of the creditor to that extent against the estate 
 of the bankrupt debtor 5 , but the surety may in his con- 
 tract of suretyship agree to waive this right for the 
 benefit of the creditor ; and where he waives that right 
 the fact that he has been secured by a security on the 
 estate of the creditor- is, in the absence of fraud, 
 immaterial 6 . 
 
 But as the surety is not entitled to stand in the 
 place of the creditor until he has paid the whole of what 
 
 ' If, then, two other sureties pay off tEe whole debt they are entitled 
 to all the remedies which the creditor would have had and can prove for 
 the whole debt against their co-surety's estate, but can only recover so 
 much as will recoup themselves what they have paid beyond their 
 proper share: In re Parker, Morgan v. Hill (1894), 3 Ch. 400, at p. 
 407 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 6 ; but where a surety has not paid more than his 
 proportion of the debt due the principal creditor there is no good 
 petitioning creditor's debt and presumably no debt provable in bank- 
 ruptcy against the estate of a co-surety by his fellow surety, even though 
 the co-surety has not been required by the creditor to pay anything, 
 provided the co-surety has not been released by the creditor : In re and 
 ex parte Snoicdon (1881) , 17 Ch. T>. 44 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 540. 
 
 * In re Sass and esr parte National Pror. Bank. England. Ltd. (1896) , 
 2 Q. B. 12 ; 65 L. J. Q. B 481 ; 3 Mans. 125 ; In re Stratford Fuel, Ice 
 and Construction Co.. Coughlin & Irwin's Claim (1913), 2S O. I/. R. 481; 
 13 D. L. R. 64 ; affd. 50 S. C. R. 100 ; 28 D. L. R. 437 ; per Hodgms, J., in 
 28 O L. R. at p. 490 ; Ellis v Emmanuel (1876) , 1 Ex. D. 157 ; 46 L. J. 
 Ex. 25. Where there is a bond for the ultimate balance due and the 
 creditor makes a compromise with the liquidator of the debtor whereby 
 he agrees not to rank on the estate for the unsecured portion of his 
 claim, but reserves his rights against the surety, the surety on payment 
 of the balance of the claim is entitled to occupy the position of a credi- 
 tor ; In re Stratford Fuel, Ice and Construction Co.. supra. 
 
 5 Thornton v. McKewan, 1 H. & M 525, as cited in Midland Banking 
 Co. v. Chambers (1869), L. R. 4 Ch. 398; 38 L. J. Ch. 478. 
 
 * Midland Banking Co. v. Chambers, supra. The principal debtor 
 who has received payment from the surety of the part of the debt 
 guaranteed by him can in such case prove for his whole debt ; though he 
 cannot receive more than 100 cents on the dollar, S. C. 
 
424 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 44 
 
 Rule of con- 
 struction as 
 to liability 
 of surety for 
 whole debt 
 or for part. 
 
 Proof 
 against 
 different 
 estates for 
 same debt. 
 
 he is liable for, the point which most frequently arises 
 in bankruptcy in this connection is whether the surety 
 is surety for the whole of the debt or only for a part. 
 The guarantee given by the surety may be so worded 
 as expressly to limit his liability in amount, and yet 
 his suretyship may still be in respect of the whole debt. 
 In such a case, although the surety has paid the 
 whole of the~ sum represented by his limited liability, 
 he has no right of proof in preference or in priority 
 to the principal creditor, for he has only paid a part of 
 the principal debt 7 , and, conversely, in such case the 
 principal creditor, although he has received payment 
 from the surety of the part of his debt represented by 
 the limited liability of the surety, is entitled to prove 
 in the bankruptcy for the full amount due from the 
 principal debtor 3 . The rule of construction in such 
 cases as given in Ellis v. Emmanuel 9 is that where a 
 surety gives a continuing guarantee limited in amount 
 to secure the floating balance which may from time to 
 time be due from the principal to the creditor, the 
 guarantee is, as between the surety and the creditor, to 
 be construed (prima facie at least) as applicable to 
 a part only of the debt co-extensive with the amount of 
 the guarantee. But a guarantee limited in amount for 
 a debt already ascertained which exceeds that limit is 
 not prima facie to be construed as a security for part 
 of the debt only 10 . 
 
 Where a person has a demand upon a bill or bond 
 against several persons and no part of the demand 
 has been paid before bankruptcy by any of them he 
 may prove against each; and the circumstance that 
 one is a surety, the other a principal, or a co-surety, as 
 between themselves does not give a right to stop the 
 
 7 In re Sass ex parte National Prov. Bank England, Ltd. (1896) , 2 
 Q. B. 12 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 481 ; 3 Mans. 125 ; Martin v. McMullen (1881), 
 18 O. A. R. 559 ; Ex parte National Prov. Bank v. Bees (1881) , 17 Ch. D. 
 98 ; In re Patent Cloth-Board Co., ex parte Bank of Ottawa (1903), 3 0. 
 W. R. 373, and see Struthers v. Henry (1900) . 32 O. R. 365. 
 
 8 In re Sass ex parte National Prov. Bank, supra; Ex parte. Na- 
 tional Prov. Bank v. Rees, supra; In re Melton, Milk v. Towers (1918), 
 1 Ch. 37. 
 
 (1876), 1 Ex. D. 157. 
 
 10 S. C. at pp. 168-9; and see Ex parte Rushforth (1805), 10 Ves. 
 409. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 425 
 
 holder receiving dividends until he has received 20 Section 44 
 shillings in the pound 1 . 
 
 If at the time of. proving against the estate of a bui holder 
 bankrupt liable on a bill of exchange or note, the credi- p^ve for 
 tor so proving has received part of the debt from™sidueof__ 
 another person to whom liability also attaches, he will tain cases, 
 be allowed to prove for the residue only 2 . This rule 
 is said to be appplicable to negotiable instruments 
 only 3 , and not to a case where there is no privity of 
 contract between the person in the position of princi- 
 pal debtor and the person in the position of surety. 
 Thus where a lessor proved for £400 against the 
 estate of the lessee under a covenant in the lease by 
 which the lessee was to reinstate the premises if they 
 were destroyed ; and the lessor had received £273 from 
 an insurance company in full discharge of his right 
 under a policy of insurance on the premises, it was 
 held that he was entitled to prove for £400 ; the right 
 of the insurance company to any dividend paid being 
 another matter 4 . 
 
 1 Per Eldon, L.C., in Ex parte Rushforth (1805), 10 Ves. 409, 41G ; 
 cited In re Parker, Morgan v. Hill (1894) , 3 Ch. 400 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 6, per 
 Davey, L.J., at 407. Thus if hills are discounted in the market 
 which are drawn by one firm on another firm and then both firms become 
 bankrupt or agree to a composition the bill-holder is entitled to prove 
 against both estates and to rece : ve all the d : vidends or composition he 
 can get from both estates until he receives 20 shillings in the pound and 
 the firm which is surety on the bills has no right to receive anything 
 until the bill-holder has received 20 shillings in the pound : Ex parte 
 Turquand in re Fothergill (1876), 3 Ch. D. 445; 45 L. J. Bank. 153. 
 Where the bill-holder has received debentures in the way of dividends 
 from the principal debtor which a,re worth 5 shillings in the pound the 
 surety who has paid 18 shillings in the pound can say to the bill- 
 holder : " Your right is only to get 20 shillings in the pound. These 
 debentures are now saleable at 5 sh ; U'ngs in the pound in the market; 
 go and sell them and take 2 shillings to make 20 shillings and give me 3 
 shill : ngg," see per Mellish, L.J., in Ex parte Turquand in re Fothergill, 
 supra, at 451. 
 
 2 Ex parte Taylor in re Houghton (1857), 26 L. J. Bank. 58. 
 
 'In re Blackburn ex parte Strouts (1892), 9 Mor. 249, but see 
 infra. In re Blakely ex parte Aachener Disconto Gesellschaft (1892) , 
 9 Mor. 173, and d-'stinguish In re Sass ex parte National Prov. Bank 
 of England. Ltd. (1896), 2 Q. B. 12; 65 L. J. Q. B. 481; 3 Mans. 125; 
 Ex parte National Prov. Bank v. Rees (1881), 17 Ch. D 98. If the 
 creditor is paid in full by the surety that does not prevent the creditor 
 suing the debtor for the whole debt because although he has received 
 20s. in the pound he has not received it from the debtor : Per Scrutton, 
 L.J., in In re Melton, Milk v Towers (1918), 1 Ch. 37. 
 
 4 In re Blackburn ex parte Strouts (1892), supra. 
 
426 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 44 
 
 Proof 
 against 
 estate of 
 surety. 
 
 Mutual ac- 
 counts of dis 
 honoured 
 bills. 
 
 BiU security 
 for larger 
 sum than 
 debt. 
 
 A creditor is entitled to prove against the estate of 
 a surety for the .full amount of the debt for which the 
 surety is liable unless he, the creditor, has received 
 part of his debt by payment from the estate of the 
 principal debtor ; or unless a dividend from the estate 
 of the principal debtor has been declared, in which 
 case he may only prove for the residue after deducting 
 the amount so paid 5 . But if after proof is made the 
 creditor receives a dividend from the estate of the 
 principal debtor that will not be deducted from the 
 amount of his proof 6 . A substitution by certain guar- 
 antors of security in place of their personal responsi- 
 bility which security was to be carried in a suspense 
 account, does not until appropriation operate as a 
 payment so as to prevent the principal creditor from 
 proving for the full debt against the estate of another 
 guarantor 7 . A surety is entitled to have the liability 
 proved as against him in the same way as against the 
 principal debtor; and in the absence of agreement a 
 judgment against a principal debtor is not binding on 
 the surety and is not evidence against him in an action 
 by the creditor 8 . 
 
 Where there are mutual accommodation accept- 
 ances between two firms or individuals who have both 
 become bankrupt and the account between them con- 
 sists partly of dishonoured bills, proof cannot be made' 
 against either estate in respect of the dishonoured 
 bills . This principle does not apply when the bills 
 are in the hands of third parties who seek to prove 10 . 
 
 The holder of a bill of exchange taken from the 
 drawer as security for a sum less than the amount of 
 the bill is entitled as against the estate of the bankrupt, 
 who had accepted it for the accommodation of the 
 
 s In re Blakely ex parte Aachener Disconto Oesellsckaft (1892) , 
 9 Mor. 173. 
 
 S. C. 
 
 ''Commercial Bank of Australia v. Official Assignee (1893), A. C. 
 181 ; 62 L. J. P. C. 61. 
 
 8 Ex parte Young in re Kitchen, 17 Ch. D. 668. 
 
 "Ex parte Walker (1798), 4 Ves. 373. 
 
 10 Ex parte Cama in re London, Bombay and Mediterranean Bank 
 (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 686; 43 L. J. Bank. 683; and distinguish Bv 
 parte Macredie in re Charles (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 535; 42 L. J. Bank. 
 90. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 427 
 
 drawer, to prove for the full amount of the bill, though Section 44 
 he cannot receive dividends in excess of the debt due to — 
 him by the drawer 1 . 
 
 A surety is not it seems discharged from a guaran- Guarantee 
 tee of "the interest payable in respect of the deben- JJf forest! 
 ture until the repayment" of the principal sum, when, 
 by reason of the dissolution of the company which 
 issued it, the debenture is no longer payable by the 
 company. The creditor is therefore entitled to prove 
 for the estimated value of his security 3 , but where the 
 guarantee is as to the payment of interest on a mort- 
 gage so long "as any principal money remains due," 
 the obligation of the surety is discharged by the 
 bankruptcy of the debtor ; for the principal money can 
 only remain due in a legal sense when it can be recov- 
 ered in an action, which cannot be done after the bank- 
 ruptcy of the debtor*. 
 
 The decisions with respect to proof for costs are Costs, 
 important. First with respect to actions against per- 
 sons who become bankrupt, it has been decided that if 
 an action is brought for the recovery of a sum of 
 money against a person who becomes bankrupt before 
 verdict and the action is successful, the eosts are 
 regarded as an addition to the sum recovered and to 
 be provable if that is provable but not otherwise 5 . 
 Bankruptcy does not operate as a revocation of a sub- 
 mission to arbitration and although the trustee is not 
 
 '& parte Newton in re Bunyard (1880), 16 Ch. D. 330. Where 
 a purchaser of bills must be taken to have notice that they are fraudu- 
 lent he cannot prove for the full amount of the bills, but only for the 
 sum paid by him for the bills: In re Gommersall (1875), 1 Ch. D. 137, 
 142; 45 L. J. Bank. 1; affd. sub nom. Jones v. Gordon (1877), 2 A. C. 
 616. 
 
 3 In re Fitsgeorge ex parte Robson (1905), 1 K. B. 462; 74 L. J 
 K. B. 322 ; 12 Mans. 14. 
 
 *In re Moss ex parte Hallett (1905), 2 K. B. 307; 74 L. J K. B 
 764. 
 
 B In re British Goldfields of West Africa (1899), 2 Ch. 7 ; 68 L. J. 
 Ch. 412; 6 Mans. 334, citing In re Neioman (1876). 3 Ch. D. 494; 
 46 T,. J. Bank. 57 ; In re Bluck, 57 L. T. 419 ; 4 Mor. 273 ; Emma Silver 
 Mining- Co. (1880), 17 Ch. D. 122; 50 L. J. Ch. 449. A credtor who 
 had obtained judgment but whose costs were untaxed might under the 
 Act of 1869 ascertain how much was likely to be taxed off his bill so 
 that he could safely swear that a fixed certain sum was due him; 
 Ex parte Ruffle in re Dummelow (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 997; 42 L. J. 
 Bank. 82; but see Ex parte Pearce in re Grieves (1879), 13 Ch. D. 262. 
 
428 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 A penalty. 
 
 section 44 bound by the reference he has no power to revoke the 
 submission. A creditor under such a submission to 
 arbitration where the costs were to be in the discre-. 
 tion of the arbitrator is entitled even though the award 
 is given after the date of the adjudication to prove for 
 the costs in question 8 . Secondly with respect to actions 
 by a debtor. If an unsuccessful action is brought by 
 a man who becomes bankrupt, and he is ordered to pay 
 the costs, or if a verdict is given against him before 
 he becomes bankrupt they are provable 7 . But if no 
 verdict is given against him, and no order is made for 
 payment of costs until after he becomes bankrupt they 
 are not provable" ; for in such a case there is no provable 
 debt to which the costs are incident, and there is no 
 liability to pay them by reason of any obligation 
 incurred by the bankrupt before bankruptcy; nor are 
 they a contingent liability to which he can be said to be 
 subject at the date of his bankruptcy 8 . 
 
 Where a contract provides that in case of breach a 
 named sum should be paid over as and for liquidated 
 damages, but the sum is in fact in the nature of a pen- 
 alty, the creditor is entitled to prove only for the act- 
 ual damage he has sustained 9 . 
 
 It formerly was the rule in bankruptcy that credi- 
 tors whose debts were founded on voluntary deeds were 
 to be postponed in the receipt of dividends until all 
 the creditors in value had been paid in full. That is 
 no longer the law 10 . 
 
 The class of claims covered by the words "or to 
 which he may become subject before his discharge by 
 
 "In re Smith ex parte Edwards (1886), 3 Mor. 179. The trustee 
 has two courses open : He may either allow the reference to go on and 
 let the creditor prove, or he may apply to the court and express his 
 willingness to allow the creditor to prove as for damages for the refer- 
 ence coming to an end (S.C.). 
 
 ' In re British Goldfields of West Africa, supra, citing In re Pear 
 cock (1872), L. R. 8 Ch. 682; 42 L, J. Bank. 78. 
 
 "In re British Goldfields of West Africa (1899), 2 Ch. 7; 68 h. J. 
 Ch. 412; 6 Mans. 334, citing Vint v. Hudspith (1885), 30 Ch. D. 24; 
 54 L. J. Ch. 844, and see In re a Debtor (1911), 2 K. B. 652; 80 L. J. 
 K. B. 1224 ; 18 Mans. 311. 
 
 Ex parte Copper in re Newman (1876) , 4 Ch. D. 724 ; 46 L. J. 
 Bank 57 ; and see Ex parte Maclean (1842) , 2 M. D. & D. 564. 
 
 "So Coates ex parte Scott (1892) . 8 Ch. D. 621 ; 47 L. J. Bank. 43; 
 9 Mor. 87 ; Ex parte Pottinger in re Stewart (1878), 8 Ch. D. 621; 47 
 L. J. Bank. 43. 
 
 Debts 
 founded on 
 voluntary 
 deeds. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 429 
 
 reason of any obligation incurred before the date of Section 44 
 the receiving order or of the making of the authorized Debts and 
 assignment," include eases of contract where the trus- jja^imes ^ 
 tee either disclaims or ceases to perform the contract, sequentiy to 
 In such case the creditor may prove against the estate orderT™'' 
 for the damages occasioned by the breach of the con- 
 tract, and this is his only remedy 1 . The measure of 
 the damages in the case of leasehold is the difference 
 between the rent under the lease and what rent can be 
 obtained after the disclaimer 2 . 
 
 Semble, cestuis que trust' may prove personally in Proof by 
 the bankruptcy of their trustees 3 . Zu S t ,que 
 
 The rules with respect to proof for interest are interest, 
 treated in the notes to sections 49 and 50. 
 
 The transferee of a mortgage has no right of proof No right of 
 against the estate of an assignee of the equity of^eenmort- 
 redemption, there being no privity of contract between sag.ee and 
 
 , n , . ,. i .,.. , „ assignee of 
 
 them, and no personal liability on the part of the equity of re- 
 assignee of the equity of redemption to pay interest ; demptlon - 
 uor will the fact that the assignee has paid interest 
 on the mortgage confer a right of proof 4 . 
 
 Just as a debt barred by the Statute of Limitations statute of 
 is not a good petitioning creditor's debt 5 , so barred Limitations - 
 debts are not provable 6 . When once the right of proof 
 exists against the estate 7 the Statute of Limitations 
 
 1 In re Sneezum ex parte Davis (1876) , 3 Ch. D. 463, 475 ; 45 L J 
 Bank. 137. 
 
 'Ex parte Llynvi Coal and Iron Co. in re Bide (1871), L. R 7 Ch. 
 28 ; 41 L. J. Bank. 5. 
 
 z In re Bradely ex parte Walton (1910), 54 S. J. 377; varied sub 
 nom. in re Bradely ex parte Bourner, S. C. p 444. 
 
 * In re Errington ex parte Mason (1894), 1 Q. B. 11. 
 
 "Bryant v. Withers^ 2 M. & S 123; Ex parte Griffiths, 3 D. M. & 
 G. 174 ; Ambrose v. Clenton, 2 Str. 1052. 
 
 "Ex parte Kidd, 7 Jur. N. S. 613; Ex parte Dewdney (1808), 15 
 Ves. 479; Ex parte Roffey, 2 Rose 245. The rule is the same in com- 
 pulsory winding-up proceed'ngs : In re General Rolling Stock Co.. L. R. 
 7 Ch. 646, 648, 649. See, however, in the case of a voluntary liquidation: 
 In re Fleetwood and District Electric Light and Power Syndicate 
 (1915), 1 Ch. 486. 
 
 7 The rule is probably the same both under a receiving order and 
 under an authorized assignment: Compare Court v. Walsh (1883), 9 
 0. A. R. 294, 309. See, further, as to the practice in England under 
 assignments and compositions: Per Bramwell, B., in Slater v. Jones, 
 L. R. 8 Ex. 193, 194; Ex parte Topping in re Levey, 34 L. J. Bank, 
 44 ; Good v. Cheeseman, 5 B. & Ad. 328 ; Oughton v. Trotter, 2 Nev. 
 & Man 71 ; Cranley v. Hillary, 2 M. & S. 120 ; Phillips v. Phillips. 3 
 Hare 281. 
 
430 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 44 does not run in favour of the trustee of the estate 8 
 ~ and the creditors can subject to the provisions of sec- 
 tion 37(3) prove and participate in dividends at any 
 time 9 . While therefore a debt does not become barred 
 by lapse of time in the bankruptcy if it was not so 
 barred at the beginning of the bankruptcy, still if the 
 debt or cause of action arose before and not after the 
 commencement of the bankruptcy, the statute will con- 
 tinue to run so as to bar the debt from ranking against 
 assets which are not assets in the bankruptcy 10 . 
 
 A payment to take a debt out of the Statute of 
 Limitations must be a payment from which a promise 
 to pay the balance can be inferred. Such a promise 
 will not after the death of the debtor, be inferred from 
 payments which have been made under a composition 
 or deed of arrangement which contains no promise to 
 pay more than will come from the income of the debtor 
 during his lifetime 11 . 
 
 As there is nothing in the Act to deprive a mort- 
 gagee of his right of entry on land mortgaged to him 
 by the debtor, or of his right of action to enforce it 
 against the trustee if he assumes possession, it follows 
 that an authorized assignment, and it is considered a 
 receiving order, will not stop the running of the statute 
 against the claim of the mortgagee to the land 1 . Where 
 a creditor has a lien he may make use of it to enforce 
 payment of his debt, although his debt is statute 
 barred 2 . 
 Partnership Where a partnership debt has been incurred by a 
 byfraud! rre fraud of the partners, the defrauded creditor may 
 prove at his election against either the joint estate of 
 the firm or the separate estates of the partners, 1 and 
 the creditor does not lose his right of election merely 
 
 8 See In re Coles ex parte Ross (1827), 2 Gly. & J. 330; In re 
 Crossley, Munns v. Burn (1887), 35 Ch. T>. 266. 
 
 "In re Cullwick ex parte 0. R. (1918), 1 K. B. 646; 87 L. J. K. B. 
 S27; (1918-19), B. & 0. R. 33. 
 
 10 In re Benzon, Bower v. Chetwynd (1914), 2 Ch. 68; 83 h. J. Ch. 
 658 ; 21 Mans. 8. 
 
 11 In re Lee ex parte Grunwald (1920), 2 K. B. 200; 89 L. J. K. B. 
 364 ; (1918-19) , B. & C. R. 287. 
 
 1 Court v. WalshT (1883) , 9 O. A. R. 294, 309. 
 
 2 In re Hepburn ex parte Smith (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 394, 400; 54 
 L. J. Q. B. 422 ; Carter v. Carter (1886), 55 L. J. Ch. 230. 
 
 1 Ex parte Adamson in re Collie (1878), 8 Ch. D. 807; 47 L. J. 
 Bank. 103. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 431 
 
 because he has proved and received a dividend ; for he Section 45 
 may change his election on refunding the dividend 
 with interest 2 . 
 
 Proof of Debts. 
 
 45. (1) Every creditor shall prove his debt as proof of 
 soon as may be after the making of a receiv- debts> 
 ing order or after the date of an authorized 
 assignment or as soon as possible after such 
 creditor has received notice of meeting for 
 the consideration of a composition, exten- 
 sion or scheme of arrangement. 
 
 (2) A debt may be proved by delivering or 
 sending through the post in a prepaid and 
 registered letter to the trustee, a statutory 
 declaration verifying the debt.- 
 
 (3) The statutory declaration may be made by 
 the creditor himself or by some person 
 authorized by or on behalf of the creditor. 
 If made by a person so authorized, it shall 
 state his authority and means of knowledge. 
 
 (4) The statutory declaration shall contain or 
 refer to a statement of account showing the 
 particulars of the debt, and shall specify the 
 vouchers, if any, by which the same can be 
 substantiated. The trustee may at any time 
 call for the production of the vouchers. 
 
 (5) The statutory declaration shall state 
 whether the creditor is or is not a secured 
 creditor. 
 
 (6) Every creditor who has lodged a proof 
 shall be entitled to see and examine the 
 proofs of other creditors before the first 
 •meeting, and at all reasonable times. 
 
 Cross References Act: Debts provable, 44 ; proof by secured 
 creditors, 46; proof necessary before creditor can vote, 42(9) (10) (11) ; 
 disallowance of claims, 53 ; proof in respect of distinct contracts, 47 ; 
 interest. 49 ; debts payable at a future time, 50. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Proof of claims', 115, 116; disallowance 
 of claims, 117, 118 ; valuation of contingent and unliquidated claims, 
 119. 
 
 * S. C. and" see further as to proof in partnership eases notes to 
 sections 47 and 51(3). 
 
432 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 45 Cross Reference Forms: Proof of debt, 47; proof of debt of 
 workmen or others, 48. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, Schedule II., Rules 
 1 to 7. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Amendment. 
 
 Proof optional but condition precedent to voting and dividends. 
 
 Securities to be valued in proof. 
 
 Discounts. 
 
 Amendment. Section 45(1) was substituted for the previous sub- 
 section by The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act 1920 3 . 
 Proof option- The provision that every creditor shall prove his 
 dltionprece- °- e kt * s directory only 4 , it does not prevent a secured 
 dent to creditor from deciding at any time not to rely on his 
 
 dividends, security, but to come in and prove against the un- 
 divided assets 5 . Proof is a condition precedent to the 
 right to vote 6 and to the right to receive dividends 7 . 
 Securities The statutory declaration referred to in the section 
 
 inpTOof! 116 ' 1 is the Same as the PrOOf ° f Del:)t Bet 0ut in Fom 47 > 
 
 -which requires that particulars of securities be given 
 and that they be valued. It is, however, only a . 
 ' ' secured creditor ' ' who is required to value his securi- 
 ties. A secured creditor is defined in section 2(gg) 8 . 
 Under the English Act it is clear that the statutory 
 declaration which a secured creditor who does not 
 either realize or surrender his security is required to 
 file if he wishes to rank for dividends 9 , is the regular 
 form of proof. Although there is a change in the 
 language as used in The Bankruptcy Act, it is consid- 
 ered that the statutory declaration referred to in sec- 
 tion 46(3), is the same as that mentioned in section 45 
 and set out in Form 47. While it was said at one time 
 
 s The previous subsection read: "45(1). Every creditor shall prove 
 his debt as soon as may be after the making of a receiving order or after 
 the date of an authorized assignment." 
 
 'In re McMurdo (1902), 2 Ch 684; 71 L. J. Ch. 691. 
 
 "S. G. ; Ex parte Wil'iams in re Kit Hill Tunnel Co., 16 Oh. D. 
 590; 50 L. J. Ch. 303; and see s. 37(3). 
 
 6 Section 42(9) (10). 
 
 'Section 37(1). 
 
 " See also notes to section 46. Following the general practice in 
 bankruptcy a creditor who holds as collateral for his debt bills of 
 exchange accepted by the bankrupt, should specify the bills in his proof 
 of debt: In re Ruthen ex parte Kidd (1898) ; 5 Mans. 227. 
 
 9 Section 46(3).' 
 
TBE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 433 
 
 that lumping securities is prima facie legal 10 , the trus- section 45 
 tee may insist that proof shall not be made for a lump 
 sum, and may require the creditor to distinguish and 
 specify the particular debts and the values of the 
 securities for the same respectively 1 , at least where 
 the debts are distinct in substance with different rights 
 over as against third persons or with different securi- 
 ties 2 . In view of the difficulties which are consequent 
 on any other course this seems to be the better prac- 
 tice 3 . Certainly no action by the trustee in allowing 
 securities to be lumped will be allowed adversely to 
 affect the rights of other creditors if this can be 
 avoided 4 . 
 
 The question of what rule is to be followed with Discounts; 
 respect to trade and cash discounts under the Act has 
 not been covered by the Act or Eules. The rule in 
 England prior to the Act of 1883 and prior to the 
 case of In re Cumberland, ex parte W orthington 5 , was 
 that proof could not be made in bankruptcy without 
 deducting cash discounts 6 . In re Cumberland, ex parte 
 Worthington, which was a decision of Bacon, C.J., on 
 the special facts of the case, was followed by Eule 8 of 
 Schedule II. of the Act of 1883. That rule corresponds 
 with Eule 8 of Schedule II. of the Act of 1914, which 
 reads : — 
 
 " 8. A creditor proving his debt shall deduct therefrom all 
 trade discounts, but he shall not be compelled to deduct any 
 discount, not exceeding five per centum on the net amount of 
 his claim, which he may have agreed to allow for payment in 
 cash." 
 
 As to a case of a trade discount between brewer and 
 
 19 In re Smith and Logan ex parte Fletcher and Brandon (1895), 
 2 Mans. 70. 
 
 1 In re Morris James v. London and County Banking Co. (1899), 
 1 Ch. 485 : 68 L. J. Ch. 229; 6 Mans. 178. 
 
 2 s n c. 
 
 'In re Pearce (1909), 2 Ch. 492; 78 L. J. Ch. 628; 16 Mans. 191. 
 
 * S. C. and In re Morris James v. London and County Banking Co., 
 supra. 
 
 8 (1876). 3 Ch. D. 803, 
 
 'Ex parte Pigou (1818), 3 Madd. 136, following Ex parte Aynsioorth 
 (1799), 4 Ves. 678. 
 
 B.C.— 28 
 
434 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 46 retailer under Schedule II. Bule 8, see Chambers & Co. 
 v. Gunstone 7 . 
 
 Provable debts are discussed in the notes to section 
 44. The rules which the trustee' should follow in the 
 acceptance or rejection of proofs are set out in the 
 notes to section 53. 
 
 Proof by 
 
 secured 
 
 creditor. 
 
 May prove 
 whole debt 
 on surrender. 
 
 Secured 
 creditor 
 to value 
 securities. 
 
 Creditor to 
 identify 
 property on 
 which he 
 claims lien. 
 
 Dividend for 
 balance, and 
 penalty for 
 contraven- 
 tion. 
 
 Proof by Secured Creditors. 
 
 46 (1) If a secured creditor realizes his secu- 
 rity, he may prove for the balance due, to 
 him, after deducting the net amount realized; 
 
 (2) If a secured creditor surrenders his secu- 
 rity to the trustee for the general benefit of 
 the creditors, he may prove for his whole 
 debt. 
 
 (3) If a secured creditor does not either realize 
 or surrender his security he shall, within 
 thirty days after the date of the receiving 
 order, or of the making of the authorized 
 assignment, or within such further time as 
 may be allowed by the court or the inspec- 
 tors, file with the trustee a statutory declara- 
 tion stating therein full particulars of his 
 security or securities, the date when each 
 security was given and the value at which 
 he assesses each thereof. Every creditor 
 shall also, upon demand of the trustee, iden- 
 tify to and for the trustee, within ten days 
 after such demand, any property comprised 
 within the estate of the debtor in, upon or 
 against which he, the creditor, claims to hold 
 any right, interest, lien or security. A credi- 
 tor shall be entitled to receive a dividend in 
 respect only of the balance due to him after 
 deducting the assessed value of his security, 
 and if any creditor omits or refuses to iden- 
 tify property as in this subsection provided, 
 and within the time so provided (unless it be 
 extended in writing by the trustee or by the 
 
 (1897), 76 L. T. 780. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 435 
 
 court), his right, interest, lien or security section 46 
 in, upon or against such property shall, by - 
 force of this Act, and without more, at the 
 expiration of the time limited, become for- 
 feited to the estate of the debtor. 
 
 (4) Where a security is so valued the trustee Power of 
 may at any time redeem it on payment to the trustee - 
 creditor of the assessed value. 
 
 (5) If the trustee is dissatisfied with the value May order 
 at which a security is assessed, he may re- te C soia y t0 
 quire that the property comprised in any 
 security so valued be offered for sale at such 
 times and on such terms and conditions as 
 
 may be agreed on between the creditor and 
 the trustee, or as, in default of such agree- 
 ment, the court may direct. If the sale be 
 by public auction the creditor, or the trustee 
 on behalf of the estate, may bid or purchase. 
 
 (6) Notwithstanding subsections four and five creditor may 
 of this section the creditor may at any time, fruS to 
 by notice in writing, require the trustee to elect t° 
 
 ' exercise 
 
 elect whether he will or will not exercise his power, 
 power of redeeming the security or requir- 
 ing it to be realized, and if the trustee does 
 not, within one month after receiving the 
 notice or such further time or times as the 
 court may allow, signify in writing to the 
 creditor his election to exercise the power, 
 he shall not be entitled to exercise it; and 
 the equity of redemption, or any other 
 interest in the property comprised in the 
 security which is vested in the trustee, shall 
 vest in the creditor, and the amount of his 
 debt shall be reduced by the amount at which 
 the security has been valued. 
 
 (7) Where a security has been realized as pro- substitu- 
 vided by this section, the net amount realized amount 
 shall be paid to the secured creditor and realized . 
 shall be substituted for the amount at which 
 
 he valued such security in his claim and 
 shall be treated in all respects as an amended 
 
436 
 Section 46 
 
 Secured 
 creditor may 
 amend. 
 
 Rights and 
 
 liabilities 
 
 of creditor 
 
 where 
 
 valuation 
 
 amended. 
 
 Exclusion 
 for non- 
 compliance. 
 
 No creditor 
 to receive 
 more than 
 100 cents 
 on dollar. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 valuation by the secured creditor. The costs 
 and expenses of any such sale shall be in the 
 discretion of the court. 
 
 (8) If the trustee has not elected to acquire the 
 security as hereinbefore provided, a creditor 
 may at any time within two months after 
 filing his claim amend the valuation and 
 proof on showing to the satisfaction of the 
 trustee, or the court, that the valuation and 
 proof were made iona fide on a mistaken 
 estimate, or that the security has diminished 
 or increased in value since its previous 
 valuation ; but every such amendment shall 
 be made at the cost of the creditor, and upon 
 such terms as the court shall order, unless 
 the trustee shall allow the amendment with- 
 out application to the court. 
 
 (9) Where a valuation has been amended in 
 accordance with the foregoing subsection, 
 the creditor shall forthwith repay any sur- 
 plus dividend which he may have received 
 in excess of that to which he would have 
 been entitled on the amended valuation, or, 
 as the case may be, shall be entitled to be 
 paid out of any money, for the time being 
 available for dividend, any dividend or 
 share of dividend which he may have failed 
 to receive by reason of the inaccuracy of the 
 original valuation, before that money is 
 made applicable to the payment of any 
 future dividend, but he shall not be entitled 
 to disturb the distribution of any dividend 
 declared before the date of the amendment. 
 
 (10) If a secured creditor does not comply with 
 the foregoing subsections he shall be ex- 
 cluded from all share in any dividend. 
 
 (11) Subject to the provisions of subsections 
 five and six of this section, a creditor shall 
 in no case receive more than one hundred 
 cents in the dollar and interest as provided 
 by this Act. 
 
THE BAXKRUPTCY ACT. 43'j 
 
 Cross References Act: Secured creditor defined, 2(gg) ; rights Section 4G 
 
 of secured creditors preserved on making of R. 0. or A. A., 6(1), 10, 
 
 -cf. 11(1) (6) ; proof of debts, 45; debts provable, 44; voting by secured 
 creditors, 42(10). 
 
 Cross Reference Rules: Proof of claims, 115, 116. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Proof of debt, 47 ; creditor's petition, 2. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, Schedule II., Rules 
 10-18 ; Dominion Winding-up Act, 1906, ss. 76-82. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Rules in bankruptcy differ from Winding-up and Assignments. 
 Only creditor with security on estate of debtor need value. 
 Four courses open to secured creditor. 
 
 (1) Reliance on security. 
 
 (2) Realization and proof. 
 
 (3) Surrender and proof. 
 
 (4) Proof and valuation. 
 46(4) (5) Rights of trustee. 
 
 46(6) Creditor may call on trustee to elect to redeem. 
 46(8) Amendment of valuation. 
 Withdrawal of proof. 
 Retainer of executor. 
 
 Section 46(3) is in the form in which it was enacted 
 by section 38 of The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act 
 1921 s . 
 
 Section 46 deals mainly with the rights of secured 
 creditors when proof is made. It also touches on the 
 rights of secured creditors when no proof is sought to 
 be made, and should be read with sections 6(1) and 
 10 and 22(2). 
 
 The rules laid down in section 46 with respect to Rules in 
 the valuation of securities differ from those in The^^^oS. 
 Winding-up Act and from the rules under the various winding up 
 assignments Acts. Under The Winding-up Act, andments. 
 also under certain provincial Acts, a creditor holding 
 a claim based on a negotiable instrument upon which 
 
 s The previous section read : 
 
 46. (3) If a secured creditor does not either realize or surrender his 
 security, he shall within thirty days of the date of the receiving order, 
 or of the making of the authorized assignment, or within such further 
 time as may be allowed by the inspectors, or in case they shall refuse, 
 then within such further time as may be allowed by the court, file with 
 the trustee a statutory declaration stating therein full particulars of his 
 security or securities, the date when each security was given, and the 
 value at which he assesses each thereof. He shall be entitled to receive 
 a dividend only in respect of the balance due to him after deducting the 
 value so assessed. 
 
438 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 46 the debtor is only indirectly or secondarily liable is 
 
 ~ considered to hold security if the instrument is not 
 
 mature or exigible, and is required to put a value on 
 
 the liability of the person primarily liable 9 . 
 
 OBiy creditor Under The Bankruptcy Act it is only a "secured 
 
 o^gteteof 7 creditor" who is required to value his security if he 
 
 vaiue rneed w i snes ^0 prove; and he only is a secured creditor who 1 
 
 has a security on the property of the debtor 10 . Thus a 
 
 person holding security on property not belonging 'to 
 
 the debtor is not a secured creditor and need not value 
 
 his security 11 , as where a separate creditor holds a 
 
 security on the joint estate 1 , or where a joint creditor 
 
 holds a security on the separate estate 2 , or where all the 
 
 beneficial interest in the security has passed to the 
 
 -creditor 8 , or to some other person 4 . Bills of Exchange 
 
 accepted by various persons and banded to bankers by 
 
 a debtor are not, at least while the bills are held 
 
 "pending discount", securities which have to be 
 
 valued 5 . Where a creditor is not a "secured creditor"' 
 
 and yet holds security, he is entitled to prove for the 
 
 whole amount of his debt and to take a dividend on the 
 
 whole 6 , subject to the qualification that he must not 
 
 ultimately receive more than 100 cents, on the dollar 7 . 
 
 ° R. S. C. 1906, c. 144, s. 79 ; R. S. O. 1914, c. 124, s. 25(5) ; R. S. M. 
 1913, c. 12, s. 29. 
 
 10 See 2 (jw). 
 
 *In re Plummer, 1 Phil. 56; Ex parte Shepherd, 2 M. D. & D. 204^ 
 Ex parte Parr in re Leigh, 1 Rose 76 ; Ex parte West Biding Banking 
 Co. in re Turner, 19 Oh'. D. 105. 
 
 x In re Jones (1878), 2 O. A. R. 626, and see In re Chaff ey (1870), 
 30 U. C. Q. B. 64, 72, 73 : Ex parte Shepherd, 2 M. D. & D. 204 : Ex 
 parte English and American Bank in re Eraser, Trenholm & Co. (1869), 
 L. R. 4 Ch. 49, followed in Martin v. MeMullan (1890), 19 O. R. 230; 
 affd. 18 O. A. R. 559; In re Jones ex parte Consolidated Bank (1878), 
 2 O. A .R. 626 ; Ex parte Manchester and Liverpool Bank in re Littler, 
 Xi. R. 18 Eq. 249; 43 L. J. Bank. 73. 
 
 2 Ex parte Caldicott in re Hart (1884), 25 Ch. D. 716. 722; 53 
 L. J. Ch. 668; Ex parte Watson in re Walker (1880), 42 L. T. 516; 
 Ex parte Diekin in re Poster (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 767. 
 
 3 In re Hallett & Co. ex parte Cocks, Biddulph & Go (1894), 2 Q. 
 B. 256 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 676 ; 1 Mans. 83 ; Bouroeau Co. v. Stewart Mae- 
 donald Export Co. (1917), Que. 26 K. B. 315. 
 
 * In re Ottawa Porcelain Co (1900), 31 O. R. 679, 692; 20 C. L. T. 
 179. 
 
 5 Ex parte JSchofield in re Firth (1879), 40 L. T. N. S. 464, 823. See 
 further notes to 2(gg). 
 
 'Eastman v. Bank of Montreal (1885), 10 O. R. 79. 
 
 ' S. C. and Young v Spiers (1889), 16 O. R. 672.. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 439 
 
 A secured creditor may act in any one of four section 46 
 
 Ways : Pour courses 
 
 1. He may, subject to the provisions of section 22 ^"^ 
 (2), rely solely on his security and decide not to prove 8 , creditor. 
 
 2. He may, subject to the provisions of section W s ^?^ ee 
 22(2), realize his security and prove for the balance 9 . (2 > Reaiiza- 
 It is a general rule in bankruptcy that there is to tion » nd 
 
 be no proof for interest accruing subsequently to the 
 bankruptcy 10 . Therefore while a secured creditor may 
 appropriate the proceeds of his security in satisfac- 
 tion of principal and interest due at the date of the 
 receiving order and then prove for the balance, he is 
 not entitled to apply the proceeds in payment first of 
 interest accruing subsequently to the date of the 
 receiving order and then to prove in the winding-up 
 for the principal 1 . In the event of a surplus, however, 
 dividends will be treated as applicable first in. pay- 
 ment of any interest borne by the debt and then in 
 reduction of principal 2 . It is on the same principle 
 that in the administration of joint and separate 
 estates' a creditor, whose proof is admitted against 
 both the separate estates of two bankrupts who have 
 been partners, is not entitled to receive any dividend 
 in respect .of interest, which has accrued on his debt 
 
 8 Deacon v. Driffil (1879). 4 O. A.. R. 335; In re Brampton Gas Co. 
 (1902), 4 O. L. R. 509; Capital Trust v. Yellowhead Pass Coal Co. 
 (1916) , 9 A. L. R. 463 ; 27 D. L. R. 25 ; 33 W. L. R. 873 ; and see Moor 
 v. Anglo-Italian Bank (1879), 10 Ch. D. 681. The provision in section 
 45(1) that every creditor shall prove his debt is directory only: In re 
 HcMurdo (1902), 2 Ch. 684; 71 L. J. Ch. 691. 
 
 'Section 46(1). In re Hurst (1871), 31 U. C. Q. B. 116; In re 
 Brampton Gas Co. (1902), supra; dis Deacon v. Driffil (1879), supra; 
 In re Beaty (1880). 6 O. A. R. 40, and remarks of Boyd, C, in Barber 
 V. Wade (1916), 37 O. L. R. 459; see per Middleton, J., in Union Bank 
 of Canada v. Makepeace (1917), 40 O. L. R. 368, 372, 373, for comments 
 on the difference between bankruptcy legislation and The Assignments 
 Act. A secured creditor may under the English Act at any time come 
 in and prove against the undivided assets: Re McMurdo (1902), supra; 
 Ex parte Williams in re Kit Hill Tunnel Co., 16 Ch. D. 590; 50 L. J. 
 Ch: 303. The English Act contains no 30-day provision such as appears 
 in section 46(3). 
 ': M /n re Savin (1872), L. R. 1 Ch. 760. 
 
 1 Quartermaine's Case in re London, Windsor and Greenwich Hotels 
 Co. (1892). 1 Ch. 639: 61 L. J. Ch 273; Re Bonacino ex parte Discount 
 Banking Co. (1894), 1 Mans. 59; 147. 
 
 'In re Humber Ironworks and Shipbuilding Co.; Warrant Finance 
 Co. (1869), 4 Ch. 643; Hughes' Claim; In re International Contract Co. 
 (1872), 13 Eq. 623. 
 
440 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 (3) Surren- 
 der and 
 proof. 
 
 section 46 subsequently to the date of the adjudication, until the 
 
 joint creditors have been paid the principal of their 
 
 'debts in full 3 . A secured creditor may however set off 
 against interest accrued since winding-up, the profits 
 realized from the security since the winding-up 4 , and 
 he may allocate his security to that part of his debt in 
 respect of which he has no right of proof 5 . 
 
 A creditor may not by indirect means obtain more 
 than he could by realization and proof. Thus if A.B. 
 holds security on the estate of the. debtor for payment 
 of a negotiable instrument and he negotiates the bill 
 to CD., who proves against the estate of the bankrupt 
 instead of claiming against A.B., the court will not 
 allow A.B. to retain the full proceeds of his security, 
 but will make him account to the trustee for the amount 
 by which the dividend paid on the bill exceeded that 
 which would have been paid if the value of the security 
 had been deducted 6 . 
 
 3. He may surrender his security and prove for his 
 whole debt 7 . In this case the surrender being for the 
 general benefit of creditors, the trustee stands'in the 
 place of the secured creditor and the rights of subse- 
 quent mortgagees are not accelerated 8 . 
 (4) Proof and 4. He may prove, valuing his security and ranking 
 valuation. f or the different Section 46(3) does not in terms say 
 that if a secured creditor does not either realize or sur- 
 render his security he may prove by valuing his secur- 
 
 *In re Collie ex parte Findlay (1881), 17 Ch. D. 334. 
 
 * Quartermaine' s Case in re London, Windsor and Greenwich Hotels 
 Co., supra. 
 
 5 In re Fox and Jacobs ex parte The Discount Banking Co. (1893), 
 10 Mor. 295 ; Ex parte Glyn (1840) , 1 M. D. & D. 25 ; Ex parte Hunter 
 (1801), 6 Ves. 94. 
 
 'Baines v. Wright (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 330. 
 
 'Section 46(2) ; Deacon v. Driflil (1879), 4 O. A. R. 335. As to 
 whether the surrender must be made within the thirty days mentioned 
 in section 46(3), quaere. 
 
 8 Cracknall v. Janson (1877) . 6 Ch. D. 735. 
 
 ° Section 46(3) ; Deacon v. Driffil (1879), supra. The rule in wind- 
 ing up was formerly that administered in Chancery whereby a secured 
 creditor might prove and also rely on his security : Mason v. Bogg, 2 
 My. & Cr. 443 ; Attorney-General v. Cox, 3 H. L. C. 240 ; Kellock's Cast 
 (1868), L. R. 3 Ch. 769; In re Barned's Banking Co. (1869), L R. 5 
 Ch. 18; Ebbw Vale Company's Case in re Contract Corporation (1869), 
 L. R. 5 Ch. 112; In re Blakely Ordnance Co. (1869), L. R. 8 Eq. 244; 
 In re Barnetfs Banking Co., Coupland's Claim (1869), L. R. 8 Eg. 472; 
 In re Baker Bray's Claim, 3 Ch. Ch. 499 ; Beatty v. Samuel, 29 Gr. 105. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 441 
 
 ity, and shall rank for dividends on the balance due section 46 
 after deducting the value placed upon it, but it is con- 
 sidered that this is the purport of the section. There 
 is no tiine limited in the corresponding English Rule 
 within which proof must be made. The circumstances 
 will require to be exceptional before the court will 
 refuse to allow the proof to be filed 10 . There is nothing 
 in this section nor is there any rule in bankruptcy 
 which will forfeit the debt or the security of a peti- 
 tioning creditor who fails either to value his security 11 , 
 or to state that he is ready to surrender it for the bene- 
 fit of creditors 1 for the rule in bankruptcy is election 
 not forfeiture, and there is no election with respect 
 to proof when a petition is presented 2 . But if a 
 secured creditor proves for the full amount of his debt 
 without valuing. his security, this is evidence of an 
 election to give" up his security ; arid if he votes or 
 receives dividends in respect of his whole debt, he will 
 be deemed to have surrendered his security unless the 
 omission to value arose from inadvertence 3 . 
 
 Although it was- said at one time that lumping 
 securities is prima facie legal 4 , the trustee may insist 
 that proof shall not be made for a lump sum and may 
 require the creditor to distinguish and specify the 
 particular debts and the values of the securities for 
 the same respectively, 5 at least where the debts are 
 
 10 See s. 37(3), 46(9), and In re McMurdo, Penfield v. McMurdo 
 (1902), 2 Ch. 684; 71 L. J. Ch. 691; Ex parte Williams in re Kit Hill 
 Tunnel Co. (1881), 16 Ch. D. 590; 50 L. J. Ch. 303. Owing to the 
 precarious nature of a lien holder's security and the difficulty of valuing 
 it the Court has extended the time for filing, proof and valuing the 
 security until fifteen days after the final adjudication upon the claims of 
 lien holders in the mechanics' lien actions, and the realization of the 
 security thereunder : In re Rockland Chocolate and Cocoa Co., Ltd. 
 (1921), 1 C. B. R. 452 (Drde, J.). 
 
 u Which may consist only of an interest in common with others under 
 a mortgage : In re Thunder Hill and Bowker (1896) , 5 B. C. R. 21. 
 
 1 Moor v. Anglo-Italian Bank (1879), 10 Ch. D. 681. 
 
 2 S. C. 
 
 8 S. C. Ex parte Ashworth m re Hoare (1874) , L. R. 18 Eq. 705 ; 
 43 L. J. Bank. 142. This rule was not the rule in Manitoba under The 
 Assignments Art: Box v. Bird's Hill Sand Co. (1913), 23 M. L. R. 415; 
 24 W. L. R. 706. 
 
 4 In re Smith & Logan ex parte Fletcher & Brandon (1895), 2 
 Mans. 70. 
 
 "In re Morris, James v. London and County Banking Co. (1899), 1 
 Ch. 485 ; 68 L. J. Oh. 299 ; 6 Mans. 178. 
 
443 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 46 
 
 Sec. 
 
 46(4)(5). 
 Rights of 
 trustee. 
 
 Sec. 46(6). 
 , Creditor 
 may call on 
 trustee to 
 elect to 
 redeem. 
 
 distinct in substance with different rights over as 
 ' against third persons or with different securities 6 . In 
 view of the difficulties which are consequent on any- 
 other course, this seems to be the better practice 7 . 
 Certainly no action by the trustee in allowing securi- 
 ties to be lumped will be allowed adversely to affect 
 the rights of other creditors if this can be avoided 8 . In 
 estimating the value of his security a creditor is en- 
 titled to bring into account the costs of an action for 
 damages for conversion of the property to which he 
 has been subjected by reason of the fact that the 
 bankrupt was not the owner of the property com- 
 prised in the security 9 . Where a creditor, holding 
 as security, for the payment of his debt a policy of life 
 insurance and a promissory note by a third party as 
 surety, omits to value the policy, which is accordingly 
 given up to the trustee, the surety is discharged to the 
 extent" of the value of the policy. 10 
 
 Where the creditor proves and values his security, 
 the trustee may redeem the security on payment to the 
 creditor of the assessed value ; or. if the trustee is dis- 
 satisfied with the value he may require it to be offered 
 for sale 1 . The trustee has a right of redemption under 
 section 22(2') ; but redemption in such case will depend 
 en the terms of the contract of pledge. 
 
 The provision in section 46(6) permitting the credi- 
 tor to call on the trustee to elect whether he will 
 redeem, may be compared with section 84 of The Insol- 
 vent Act of 1875, 2 which gave the assignee power, 
 under the authority of the creditors to consent to the 
 retention of the property by the secured creditor. It 
 was held in various cases under that Act that where a 
 secured creditor had valued his security for the pur- 
 pose of proof, a formal resolution of the assignee 
 
 °s. c. 
 
 ' In re Pearce (1909) , 2 Ch. 492 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 628 ; 16 Mans. 191. 
 
 8 S. C. ; In re Morris, James v. London and County Banking Co., 
 supra. 
 
 "Ex parte Carr in re Hoffman (1879), 11 Ch. D. 62; 48 L. J. 
 Bank. 69.' 
 
 10 Rainbow v. Juggins (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 138, 422; 49 L. J. Q. B. 
 353, 718. 
 
 'Section 46(4) (5). 
 
 2 See ss. 84, 85, 86. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 443 
 
 allowing the creditor to retain the security was not section 48 
 necessary and his assent could be inferred from what — 
 had taken place 3 . The fact that if the trustee does not 
 elect to redeem within one month after receivinig the 
 notice, or such further time or times as the court may 
 allow, the equity of redemption which is vested in the 
 trustee vests in the creditor, will make it important to 
 preserve evidence of the demand and non-election. 
 
 Section 46(8) with respect to the amendment of asee.46(8). 
 valuation 4 is not in the language of the corresponding ^^J^]^ 
 English section. The change in phraseology raises a 
 difficulty. The words "If the trustee has not elected 
 to acquire the security as hereinbefore provided" can 
 only refer either to redemption by the trustee under 
 section 46(4), or to election by the trustee to exercise 
 that right after having been called on so to do by the 
 creditor under section 46(6). The use of the expres- 
 sion" has not elected" in section 46(8) makes it appear 
 probable that 46(8) refers to 46(6) and not to 46(4). 
 This conclusion is fortified by the probability that the 
 words under discussion appear to have been inserted 
 to adopt the decision in Ex parte N orris, in re-Sadler'*, 
 in which it was held that a creditor might amend his 
 valuation after receipt of written notice from the 
 trustee of his intention to redeem under section 46(4), 
 where the creditor had not called on the trustee to 
 elect under 46(6), and where there had been no pay- 
 ment by the trustee 6 to the creditor of the assessed 
 value in\exercise of the trustee's right of redemption. 
 That case also seems to have suggested the insertion of 
 the words "within two months after filing his claim" 
 which do not appear in the English rule 7 . On the other 
 
 "Bell v Ross (1885), 11 O. A. R. 458; Taylor v. Davies (1917); 
 41 O. L. R. 403, 434, et seq.; Bank of Ottawa v. Newton (1906), 4 
 W. L. R. 508. 
 
 * Apart from mutual mistake or fraud there could be no amendment 
 of the value of a security under the Act of 1875 after election by the 
 assignee to allow, the creditor to retain his security: In re Street (1879), 
 15 C. L. J. 86. 
 
 1 (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 728: 56 L. J. Q. B. 93 ; 3 Mor. 260. 
 
 8 Tender it seems is not sufficient : In re Newton ex parte National 
 Provincial Bank of England (1896), 2 Q. B. 403; 65 L. J. Q. B. 686 • 3 
 Mans. 200. 
 
 * See as to other circumstances In re Fanshawe ex parte Le Marchant 
 (1905), 1 K. B. 170; 74 L. J. K. B. 153; 12 Mans. 7; In re Newton ex 
 
444 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 46 hand, it is difficult to see how 46(8) can be made to fit 
 '- exactly with 46(6). If the trustee having been called 
 upon to elect does not do so within one month there- 
 after 8 , the equity of redemption of the property vests 
 in the creditor. Is the secured creditor then entitled 
 after the expiration of the month to amend his valua- 
 tion and proof? He is no longer a secured creditor, 
 for the equity of redemption having vested in him he 
 holds no security on the property of the debtor. He 
 may no doubt, however, amend his valuation and 
 proof before the expiration of the month mentioned in 
 section 46(6), prior that is, to a declaration by the 
 trustee of his election to purchase at the creditor's 
 valuation. 9 
 
 A creditor secured by mortgage may in a proper 
 case amend his valuation notwithstanding the opposi- 
 tion of a subsequent mortgagee 10 . In case of an evi- 
 dent mistake 1 , an amendment of a proof will be 
 allowed,- and this even after the creditor has voted in 
 the choice of a trustee 2 , unless the matter is res judi- 
 cata 3 . An amendment will not be allowed where a 
 composition has been fixed on the basis of the valua- 
 tion of the security made in the proof, and to allow an 
 amendment would upset the whole proceeding*. Where 
 a secured creditor is the petitioning creditor and gives 
 an estimate in his petition of the value of his security 
 
 parte National Provincial Bank of England, supra; In re Morter ex 
 parte Nichols (1897), 76 L. T. 532. 
 
 8 Under the English Act the period is six months, Schedule II., Rule 
 13(c). 
 
 'Ex parte Norris in re Sadler (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 728; 56 L. X 
 Q. B. 93 ; 3 Mor. 260. 
 
 "Ex parte Arden (1884) , 14 Q. B. D. 121 ; 2 Mor. 1. 
 
 1 As where a creditor had valued his security at the full amount of 
 his claim (it being in fact worthless), in the mistaken belief that he had 
 lien notes to cover it: Canada Furniture Co. v. Bunning (1918), 39 D. 
 L. R. 313 ; 1 W. W. R 31 or where a creditor with a possible claim to 
 a mar'time lien had without advice of counsel filed a claim for wages 
 in winding up proceedings in which no mention was made of any security ; 
 Re Lake Winnipeg Transportation Co. (1892), 8 Man. R. 463; and see 
 notes to section 42(10). 
 
 2 Em parte Schofteld in re Firth (1879). 12 Ch. D. 337; 48 L. J. B. 
 122 -/Ex parte Bagshaw in re Eer (1879), 13 Ch D. 304. 
 
 'Ex parte Whitton in re Greaves (1880). 43 L. T. 480. 
 
 4 Couldery v. Bartrum (1880), 19 Ch D. 394 ; 51 L. J. Ch, 265 ; and 
 see Ex parte Adamson in re Collie (1878). 8 Ch. D. 807; 47 L. J- B. 
 103. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 445 
 
 he is, in the absence of mistake, probably bound by that Section 46 
 estimate and will not be allowed to revise his estimate — 
 and prove on a different footing 5 , though if he chooses 
 to abstain from proving in the bankruptcy there is noth- 
 ing in the Act or rules which entitles the trustee to 
 redeem the security at the value placed on it in the 
 petition 6 . 
 
 A creditor may withdraw his proof before it has withdrawal 
 been adjudicated upon or used for purposes of voting 7 of proof " 
 or claiming a dividend 8 and may tender another 9 . So 
 also if a proof is rejected not on the merits, but on 
 something going to a point of form, he may it seems 
 tender another proof avoiding the point of form 
 objected to 10 . But a creditor whose proof has been 
 rejected on the merits cannot withdraw it, reserving 
 to himself the right to tender a fresh proof, and sub- 
 sequently tender it in the same form 1 . Where a proof 
 has been put in by a secured creditor and has been 
 admitted for the purpose of voting, leave will not be 
 given allowing a conditional withdrawal of the proof 
 while a motion is pending to get rid of it. 2 
 
 An executor who proves abandons his right of re- Retainer of 
 tainer 3 unless he withdraws his prOof in time*. executor. 
 
 s In re Button ex parte Voss (1905) ,1K.B. 602 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 403 ; 
 12 Mans. Ill; In re Lacey ex parte Taylor (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 128; 1 
 Hor. 113. 
 
 "In re Vautin ex parte Saffery (1899), 2 Q. B. 549 ; 68 I-. J. Q. B. 
 971 ; 6 Mans. 391, distinguishing In re Lacey ex parte Taylor, supra. 
 
 1 But where there has been a mistake and a person claiming to be a 
 secured creditor has put in a proof and has voted and it appears that 
 there was no debt he may withdraw his proof : In re Burr ea: parte Clarke 
 (1892), 67 L. T. 465 ; and see notes to section 42(10) . 
 
 'In re Attree ex parte Ward (1907), 2 K. B. 868; 77 L. J. K. B. 
 130 ; 15 Mans. 19. 
 
 'In re Deerhurst ex parte Beaton (1891), 60 L. J. Q. B. 412; 8 
 llor. 258, but see In re British Columbia Pottery Co. (1895) . 4 B. C. R. 
 525, and ef. in re Brampton Gas Co. (1902), 4 O. L. R. 509. 
 
 10 In re Deerhurst ex parte Beaton, supra. 
 
 *S. C. 
 
 '•In re Clark ex parte Buenos Ayres and Pacific Railway Co., Ltd. 
 (1901), 1 K: B. 655; 70 L. J. K. B. 259 ; 8 Mans. 156. 
 
 "Stammers v. Elliot f (1868) , L. R. 3 Ch. 195; 37 L. J. Oh. 353. 
 
 4 In re and ex parte Rhoades (1899), 1 Q. B. 905; 2 Q. B. 347; 
 68 L. J. Q. B. 804 ; 6 Mans. 277 ; and see further as to execu f nr's risjht 
 of retainer; In re Watson,, Turner v. Watson (1896). 1 Ch. 925; In re 
 Hodgson, Hodgson v. Fox (1878), 9 Oh. D. 673; In re Orpen, Beswick 
 v. Orpen (1880), 16' Oh D. 202; 50 L. J. Ch. 25. It has been held by 
 Boyd, C, in Tillie v. Springer (1891), 21 O. R. 585, that the executor's 
 
446 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 47 The question of double proof against one estate is 
 treated in the notes to section 44. As to proof against 
 two estates in the case of distinct contracts, see sec- 
 tion 47; and as to the administration, of joint and 
 separate estates, see notes to 51(3). 
 
 Proof in 
 respect of 
 distinct 
 contracts. 
 
 Proof in respect of Distinct Contracts. 
 
 47. If a debtor was, at the date of the receiving 
 order or authorized assignment, liable in 
 respect of distinct contracts as a member 
 of two or more distinct firms, or as a sole 
 contractor, and also as member of a firm, the 
 circumstance that the firms are in whole 
 or in part composed of the same indivi- 
 duals, or that the sole contractor is also one 
 of the joint contractors, shall not prevent 
 proof in respect of the contracts, against 
 the properties respectively liable on the 
 contracts. 
 
 Cross References Act: Ranking of claims where different estates 
 28 (2) ; administration of joint and separate estates 51 (3) ; proof of 
 debts 45 ; .proof by secured creditors 46 ; debts provable 44. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts, 1914, Schedule II., Rule 
 19 ; 1883, Schedule II., Rule 19 ; 1869, s. 37 ; 1861, s. 152. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 Old rule. 
 
 Cases still under old rule. 
 
 Cases outside both the section and the old rule. 
 Object of the section. 
 Breaches of trust. 
 
 Old rule The old rule was that if a creditor held say a 
 
 promissory note signed by A and B in their 
 individual capacities, and also by the firm of A and B, 
 he must elect from which estate he would receive divi- 
 dends 6 . He was not allowed to receive dividends 
 from the two estates ; but this rule applied only 
 
 right to impound -shares under a will as aga'nst a debt due from the 
 beneficiaries is a security on the estate of the beneficiary. See, however, 
 per Scrutton, L J., In re Melton, Milk v Towers (1918), 1 Ch. 37, 60. 
 
 *E<c parte Honey in re Jeffery (1871), L. R. 7 Oh. 178; 41 L. J. 
 Bank 9. See notes to section 51(3). 
 
 6 Which is not the same thing as double proof against one estate, 
 see notes to section 44. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 447 
 
 where both, estates were being administered in bank- section 47 
 ruptcy or insolvency 7 . 
 
 There are cases to which the old rule still applies, cases stm 
 for the section speaks only of. liabilities in respect of J^" old 
 contracts. There has been no change in the law in cases 
 of fraud where there is no % contractual liability in 
 equity 8 . Where the fraud affects a partnership as 
 where one partner alone is guilty, but the profits of 
 the fraud have found their way into the partnership, 
 both the separate and the joint estates are liable, but 
 the party defrauded may not go against both; he must 
 make his election 9 . It is not too late for him to 
 make his election even after the receipt of a dividend 
 where he had tendered his proof against one estate in 
 ignorance of the fact that he had any right of election 
 and where there is no estoppel 10 . In such case on 
 refunding the dividend with interest he may elect 1 . 
 
 There are also cases which never were within the old Cases out- 
 rule and so are outside the section. Such a case occurs tne e se°tion 
 where a debt has been incurred apparently for an indi- ™ie the ° ld 
 vidual but in reality on behalf of a firm. On general 
 legal principles, apart from any question of adminis- 
 tration in bankruptcy, the creditor must in such case 
 elect whether he will take the joint liability of the firm 
 or the separate liability of the contractor 2 . Further 
 where traders possess two properties, one situate 
 abroad and the other situate in this country, and the 
 foreign court employs the foreign property in paying 
 the foreign creditors a dividend, such creditors cannot 
 afterwards prove in a Canadian bankruptcy without 
 first accounting for what they have received abroad, 
 for in such case there are not two distinct firms 3 . 
 
 The intention of the section, the principle of Object of 
 which first appeared in the Act of 1861, is the section - 
 
 'See Ea> parte Thornton (1859), 3 DeG. & J. 454; In re Baker 
 (1871), 3Ch. Ch. 499. 
 
 8 See infra, as to breaches of trust. 
 
 "Ex parte Adamson in re Collie (1878), 8 Ch. D. 807; 47 L J 
 , Bank. 103. 
 
 " s. c. * s. c. 
 
 2 Ex parte Norfolk (1815), 19 Ves. 455. 
 
 3 Banco de Portugal v. WaddeU (1880), 5 A. C. 161; 49 L. J. 
 Bank. 33 ; Ex parte Wilson in re Douglas (1872) , L. E. 7 Ch. 490 ■ 41 
 L. J. Bank. 46: 
 
448 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Breaches 
 of trust. 
 
 section 47 that whenever there is a joint and separate con- 
 " tract and joint and separate estates under admin- 
 istration in bankruptcy, the creditor shall be entitled 
 to prove against and receive dividends from both the 
 joint and separate estates 4 . The sole contractor 
 referred to in the section need not be carrying on busi- 
 ness separately". It is not necessary in order that 
 proof may be made against the joint estate that the 
 partners should contract in the firm name if they con- 
 tract jointly and severally, and if there is a firm in 
 fact 6 . Although there must be distinct contracts 
 they may be contained in one instrument, such for 
 example as a joint and several promissory note 7 . 
 Where there are joint and separate contracts by part- 
 ners to pay a sum of money, it is immaterial whether 
 or not the money has been advanced for partnership 
 purposes 8 . 
 
 Although the section speaks only of liabilities 
 in respect of contracts, it should be remembered 
 that the liability of a trustee in respect of a 
 breach of trust was always provable in bankruptcy as 
 a liability arising from a contract to perform his trust 
 and not from a pure tort . Where therefore trust 
 funds, handed by the trustees for investment to a firm 
 in which one of the trustees was a partner, are misap- 
 propriated by the firm the defrauded creditors become 
 joint and separate creditors 10 , and proof can be 
 
 i Ex parte Honey in re Jeffery (1871), L. R. 7 Ch. 178; 41 L. J. 
 Bank 9 : and see where there is a security on the separate estate for the 
 joint debt; Ex parte Watson m re Walker (1880), 42 L. T. 516; Bx 
 parte Dickin in re Foster (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 767. 
 
 5 Ex parte Honey in re Jeffrey, supra. 
 
 'Re Stone ex parte Welch (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 914; 42 L. J. 
 Bank 73. 
 
 7 The holder of a note can treat the payee and endorser as hav- 
 inR incurred a separate liability in respect of his endorsement distinct 
 from his liability as maker: In re Chaffey (1870), 30 U. C. Q. B. 64. 
 
 8 Re Laine & Longman e» parte Bemer (1886), 56 L. T. 170; 56 
 L. J. Q. B. 153. " It makes no difference who may benefit by the trans- 
 action resulting in the debt — the whole question is ' who incurred the 
 debt,' " per Riddell, J., in Gordon V. Matthews (1909), 18 O. Ij. R. 340, 
 345 
 
 ' flmma Silver Mining Co. v. Grant (1880), 17 Oh. D. 122, 130; 50 
 I». J. Ch. 449; Ex parte Adamson in re Collie (1878), 8 Ch. D. 807; 47 
 L. J. Bank. 103, and see notes to section 44. 
 
 w Ev parte White in re Neville (1870), L. R. 6 Oh. 397; 40 L. J. 
 Bank. 73 ; Ex parte Poulson in re Davis (1844), DeG. 79. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 449 
 
 made under section 47 against both the joint estate of section 48 
 the firm and the separate estate of the defaulting trus- 
 tee 1 , and the same rule applies where the partner 
 stands in the fiduciary relation of director 2 . But a 
 limitation has been put to the extension of this rule. 
 The section does not apply to a case where no member 
 of the firm is an express trustee as where a firm, in 
 which two persons were the sole partners, promoted a 
 company and sold to the company a business belong- 
 ing to the two partners at a large secret profit 3 . 
 The section only applies when the several liability 
 arises out of a distinct contract 4 , as in the case men- 
 tioned above where an express trustee joins with other 
 members of his firm in misapplying moneys belonging 
 to his trust. In such case the defaulting trustee is 
 liable as a partner for the breach of the implied trust 
 and as trustee for breach of the express trust 5 . 
 
 Restricted Creditors. 
 
 48 (1) Where a married woman has been p os tpon e - 
 ad judged bankrupt or has made an autho- ^^ 
 rized assignment, her husband shall not be claim. 
 entitled to claim any dividend as a creditor 
 in respect of any money or other estate 
 hereafter -lent or entrusted by him to his 
 wife for the purposes of her trade or busi- 
 ness, or claim any wages, salary or compen- 
 sation for work hereafter done or services 
 hereafter rendered in connection with her 
 trade or business, until all claims of the 
 
 'In re Parkers ex parte Shepherd (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 84; 56 
 L. J. Q. B. 33$, 4 Mor. 135 ; Re Macfadyen & Co. ex parte Vizianagaram 
 Minimi Co. No. 2 (1908), 2 K. B. 817; 77 L. J. K. B. 1027; 15 Mans. 
 313. 
 
 2 In re Macfadyen & Co. ex parte Vizianagaram Mining Co. (No 2), 
 supra. 
 
 'Re Kent County Gas, Light and Coke Co. (1913), 1 Ch. 92- 82 
 L. J. Ch. 28; 19 Mans. 358. 
 
 * " Contractual liability " are the words of Kennedy, L.J., in Re 
 Macfadyen & Go. ex parte Vizianagaram Mining Co.. supra, at 824. 82o. 
 
 5 In re Kent County Gas, Light and Coke Co., supra. 
 
 B.C.— 29 
 
450 
 Section 48 
 
 Postpone- 
 ment of 
 wile's claim. 
 
 Postpone- 
 ment of wage 
 claims of 
 relatives. 
 
 Postpone- 
 ment of wage 
 claims of 
 sharehold- 
 ers and 
 directors. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 other creditors of Ms wife for valuable con- 
 sideration in money or money's worth have 
 been satisfied. 
 
 (2) Where the husband of a married woman 
 has been adjudged bankrupt or has made an 
 authorized assignment, his wife shall not be 
 entitled to claim any dividend as a creditor 
 in respect of any money or other estate 
 hereafter lent or entrusted by her to her 
 husband for the purposes of his trade or 
 business, or claim any wages, salary or com- 
 pensation for work hereafter done or ser- 
 vices hereafter rendered in connection with 
 his trade or business, until all claims of the 
 other creditors of her husband for valuable 
 consideration in money or money's worth 
 have been satisfied. 
 
 (3) Where any person or firm has been 
 adjudged bankrupt or has made an autho- 
 rized assignment, any father, son, daughter, 
 mother, brother, sister, uncle or aunt of any 
 such person or of any member of said firm 
 shall not be entitled to claim by way of 
 dividend or otherwise from the trustee any 
 wages, salary or compensation for work 
 hereafter done or services hereafter ren- 
 dered to said person or firm exceeding an 
 amount equal to three months' wages, salary 
 or compensation, until all claims of the 
 other creditors of said person or firm for 
 valuable consideration in money or money's 
 worth have been satisfied. 
 
 (4) Where any corporation has been adjudged 
 bankrupt or has made an authorized assign- 
 ment no officer, director or shareholder 
 thereof / shall be entitled to claim by way of 
 dividend or otherwise from the trustee any 
 wages, salary or compensation for work 
 hereafter done or services hereafter ren- 
 dered to such corporation exceeding an 
 amount equal to three months' wages, salary 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 451 
 
 or compensation, until all claims of the section 48 
 other creditors of said corporation for valu- 
 able consideration in money or money's 
 worth have been satisfied. 
 
 Cross Reference Acts Certain claims under settlements postponed, 
 29(2) (3) ; priority o£ wage claims, 51(1) ; relation back of bankruptcy 
 of debtor, 4(10) ;" corporation denned, 2(fc), 2(oo). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts, 1914, s. 36; 1918, s. 
 
 12(4). The Married Women's Property Act, 1882, s.. 3. Gf. The Part- 
 nership Act, 1890 [53 and 54 Vict. c. 39] ss. 2 and 3. 
 
 Analysis op Notes. 
 
 Restricted creditor cannot prove or vote. 
 
 Restriction is statutory. 
 
 Onus of proof. 
 
 Cases outside the section. 
 
 Retainer of executrix. 
 
 Claims for wages, etc. 
 
 In cases falling within this section, the restricted Restricted 
 creditor can neither prove nor vote 6 . cannot r prove 
 
 "Were it not for section 48(2), a wife might prove orvote - 
 against her husband's estate and rank for dividends in^^JStory 
 competition with his other creditors 7 . 
 
 The section only applies where money has been lent 
 by a wife to her husband for the purpose of his trade 
 or business ; money lent by a wife to her husband for 
 private purposes may be proved for by her, and she 
 may receive a dividend in competition with other 
 creditors. 8 
 
 A wife seeking to prove in her husband's bank-onusof 
 ruptcy must make out a prima facie case, but unless proof- 
 the natural inference from the particular facts of the 
 
 'In re Genese ex parte District Bank of London (1885), 16 Q. B. 
 • D. 700 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 118 ; 2 Mor. 283 ; following Ex parte Taylor in- re 
 Grason (1879), 12 Ch. D. 366. a decis : on on the 5th section of Bovill's 
 Act. See also Ex parte Mills, L. R. 8 Ch. 569. 
 
 'Warner v. Murray (1889), 16 S. C. R. 720; Totten v. Bowen 
 (1882), 8 O. A. R. 602; In re Miller (1877), 1 O. A. R 393; Pett v. 
 Attwood (1907) , 9 O. W. R. 178, 748 and compare O'Reilly v. O'Reilly 
 (1910) , 21 O. L. R. 201 ; affd. sub nom. Garland, Son & Go. v. O'Reilly 
 (1911), 44 S. C. R. 197. 
 
 'In re and ex» parte Tidswell (1887), 56 L. J. Q. B. 548; 4 Mor. 
 219 ; Mackintosh v. Pogose (1895) , 1 Ch. 505 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 274 ; 2 Mans. 
 27; In re Clark ex parte Schulee (1898), 2 Q. B. 330; 67 L. J. Q. B. 
 759 ; 5 Mans. 201. 
 
452 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Cases out- 
 side the 
 section. 
 
 section 48 case is that the money was loaned by the wife 9 for the 
 " purpose of the husband's trade or business, the onus 
 is not on her to prove that the money was lent for some 
 other purpose. 10 It has been the rule in Ontario in 
 cases where the wife claims that she has advanced 
 money to her husband as a loan to require clear evi- 
 dence of an actual advance of money as a loan and not 
 as a gift 1 , and if the circumstances call for investiga- 
 tion this may affect the disposition of costs 2 . 
 
 The section does not apply to the case of a loan by 
 the wife of a trader to the firm of 'which her husband 
 is a member 3 ; nor is property deposited by a wife with 
 her husband's bankers as security for a loan to be 
 made by them to him within the section. The wife 
 in such case stands in the position of a surety or quasi 
 surety to the bankers for her husband's debt, and if 
 she pays off the bank she has a right to be treated as 
 having the bank's security and a right to exoneration 
 by her husband* which gives her a right of proof 
 against his estate without deducting the value of the 
 security 4 . 
 
 In England section 3 of The Married Women's 
 Property Act 1882' (which was the progenitor of sec- 
 tion 48(2) of The Bankruptcy Act) and section- 10 of 
 The Judicature Act of 1875, prevent a wife from prov- 
 ing in the administration of her deceased husband's 
 insolvent estate for a loan made by her to him for the 
 purpose of his business until his creditors for value 
 
 " See where a trader in England had gone throush the ceremony of 
 marriage w ; th his deceased wife's sister and therefore was as Bacon, 
 C.J., expressed it, " to all intents and purposes' marred except for the 
 provisions of the law of England " ; In re Beale ex parte CororUge 
 (1876), 4 Ch. D. 246; 46 L. J .Bank. 17. 
 
 10 In re Oenese ex parte District Bank of London (1885), 16 Q. B. 
 D. 700 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 118 ; 2 Mor. 283 ; as explained In re and ex parte 
 Cronmire (1901), 1 K. B. 480 ; 70 L J. K. B. 310: 8 Mans. 140. 
 
 1 See In re Miller (1877), 1 O. A. R. 393; Rice v. Rice (1899), 31 
 O. R. 59; (1900), 27 A. R. 121 : Ellis v. Ellis (1913) 5 W. N. 561; 
 25 O. W. R. 539 ; 15 D. L. R. 100. 
 
 2 Pett v Attwood (1907), 9 O W. R. 178, 748; cf. Tidey v. Craib 
 (1884). 4 O. R. 696. 
 
 "In re Tuff & Nottingham ex parte Nottingham (1887), 19 Q. B. 
 D. 88 : 56 I>. J. Q. B. 440 ; 4 Mor. 116. 
 
 4 In re and ex parte Cronmire (1901), 1 K. B. 480; 70 L. J. K. B. 
 310 ; 8 Mans. 140. 
 
 Retainer of 
 executrix. 
 
THE BAXKRVPTCY ACT. 453 
 
 have received 20 shillings in the pound. 5 , yet if she is Section 49 
 her deceased husband's executrix, she can as against - 
 those creditors retain the amount of the loan out of 
 assets in her hands as executrix 6 . 
 
 The expression used in section 48, in dealing with claims for 
 claims for wages, etc., is "wages, salary or compensa^ 3 ^' 6 ' 0, 
 tion". It may be that this phrase does not include 
 "commission" 7 , for it should be noted that the cor- 
 responding expression in section 51(1) is "wages, 
 salaries, commission or compensation". It may also 
 be that a wife can claim "wages, salary or compensa- 
 tion" to an amount exceeding three months' wages, 
 salary or compensation where her husband is a mem- 
 ber of the firm 8 . 
 
 The persons mentioned in section 48(3) (4) may be 
 preferred creditors to the extent of three months' 
 wages, salary or compensation 9 . A director is not qua 
 director a "servant" of the company, and so is not 
 entitled to priority with respect to his remuneration 
 as such 10 ; but a director may be a servant of the com- 
 pany in another capacity 1 . 
 
 Interest. 
 
 49. On any debt or sum certain, payable at a interest, 
 certain time or otherwise, whereon interest 
 is not reserved or agreed for, and which is 
 overdue at the date of the receiving order 
 or authorized assignment and provable 
 under this Act, the creditor may prove for 
 
 5 In re Leng Tarn v. Emmerson (1895), 1 Ch. 652; 64 L. J. Ch. 
 468 ; 12 E. 202. 
 
 "In re Ambler Wood v. Ambler (1905), 1 Ch. 697; 74 E. J. Ch. 
 367; In re May Crawford v. May (1890), 45 Ch. D. 499 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 34. 
 
 ''Parkin Elevator Co., Ltd., Dunsmoor's Claim (1916), 37 O. L. R. 
 227, where previous cases are reviewed. 
 
 8 On the analogy of In re and ex parte Tidswell (1887). 56 L. J. 
 Q. B. 548; 4 Mor. 219; Mackintosh v. Pogose (1895), 1 Ch. 505; 64 
 L. J. Ch. 274 ; 2 Mans. 27 ; In re Clark ex parte Schulze (1898) , 2 Q. B. 
 330 ; 67 L. J. Q. B. 759 ; 5 Mans. 201. 
 
 9 Section- 51(1). 
 
 10 In re newspaper Proprietory Syndicate (1900), 2 Ch. 349; 69 
 L. J. Ch. 578 ; 8 Mans. 65. 
 
 1 In re Beeton & Co. (1913) , 2 Ch. 279 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 464 ; 20 Mans. 
 222. and see notes to section 51(1). 
 
454 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 49 interest at a rate not exceeding six per cent, 
 
 per annum to the date of the order or autho- 
 rized assignment from the time when the 
 debt or sum was payable, if the debt or sum 
 is payable by virtue of a written instrument 
 at a certain time, and if payable otherwise, 
 then from the time when a demand in writ- 
 ing has been made giving the debtor notice 
 that interest will be claimed from the date 
 of the demand until the time of payment. 
 
 Cross References Act: Debts provable. 44 ; debts payable at a 
 future time, 50 ; proof of debts, 45 ; proof by secured creditors, 46. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, Schedule II., Rule 21. 
 
 Surety 
 paying a 
 promissory 
 note may 
 claim 
 interest. 
 
 General rule 
 that no proof 
 for interest 
 accruing 
 after receiv- 
 ing order. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Surety paying a promissory note may claim interest. 
 
 General rule that no proof for interest accruing after receiving 
 
 order. 
 Secured creditors. 
 Exceptions to general rule. 
 
 As this section has been given the heading "inter- 
 est", it has been thought convenient to discuss here 
 the rules with respect to proof for interest in bank- 
 rupty. The section indicates in what cases proof may 
 be made for interest accuring due before the date of 
 the receiving order, where the contract itself does not 
 provide for interest. 
 
 In those jurisdictions in which the equivalent of 
 section -5 of The Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856 
 is in force, a surety to a promissory note who pays the 
 note at maturity has a claim for a certain sum payable 
 by virtue of a written instrument which entitles him 
 to prove for interest on the sum paid on the note from 
 the time of payment to the date of the receiving 
 order 2 . 
 
 It is a general rule of long standing in bankruptcy, 
 in which this section makes no change, that there may 
 not be proof for interest accruing subsequently to the 
 date of the receiving order 3 ; but this rule is applicable 
 
 2 In re Evany ex parte Davies (1897), 4 Mans. 114. 
 'In re Savin (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 760; Ex parte Lubbock (1863), 
 4 DeG. J. & S. 516 ; Quartermaine's Case in re London, Windsor and 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 455 
 
 only as between trustee and creditor in the bankruptcy, Section 49 
 and not as between creditor and subsequent mort- 
 gagees after the bankruptcy has been annulled 4 . 
 
 Following the general rule secured creditors who Secured 
 realize their security 5 and prove for the balance may credltors ' 
 not retain out of the proceeds interest subsequent to 
 the date of the receiving order 6 . If they do so and if 
 dividends are paid, they will be ordered to make 
 refund, even after a considerable lapse of time and 
 change of circumstances 7 . But a secured creditor may 
 allocate the proceeds of his security in payment of 
 interest, no matter what the rate 8 , and then prove for 
 the principal. 9 
 
 The general rule is subject to two exceptions. Exceptions 
 First, where there is a surplus of assets of the estate ^f neral 
 being administered 10 , proof may be made for interest 
 subsequent to the date of the receiving order 1 . 
 Secondly, a distinction is to be observed between inter- 
 est running on a debt due before the date of the receiv- 
 ing order, and interest on a debt payable after the 
 date of the receiving order bearing interest in the 
 interim. Interest in such last mentioned case may be 
 proved for 2 . 
 
 Greenwich Hotels Co. (1892), 1 Ch. 639; Bromley v. Ooodere, 1 Atk. 
 79 ; Ex parte Badger, 4 Ves. 165 ; in such cases it made no difference 
 that the mortgage provided for the periodical payment of principal and 
 interest by sums in which principal and interest were lumped together ; 
 for the substance of the transaction was looked at and it was immaterial 
 whether or not the arithmetic was done on the face of the instrument ; 
 Ex parte Bath in re Phillips (1882), 22 Ch. D. 450, and see In re Hol- 
 land ex parte Parker & Young (1894), 1 Mans. 509. 
 
 * In re Pearce's Trusts (No. 2) (1909) . 2 Ch. 492, at 504 ; 78 L. J. 
 Ch. 784 ; 16 Mans. 265. 
 
 5 See where the security is valued In re Savin (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 
 760. 
 
 'Ex parte Lubbock (1863), 4 DeG. J. & S. 516; Quartermaine's 
 Case In re London, Windsor and Greenwich Hotel Co., supra; 
 
 ' Ex parte Lubbock, supra. 
 
 'For The Bankruptcy Act does not contain the equivalent qf section 
 66(1) of the English Act of 1914. 
 
 "In re Fox and Jacobs ex parte Discount Banking Co (1893), 10 
 Mor. 295. 
 
 10 See in the case of joint and separate estates notes to section 
 51(3). 
 
 1 Ex parte Bath in re Phillips (1882), 22 Ch. D. 450; and see sec- 
 tion 51(5). 
 
 2 See In re Browne and Wingrove ex parte Ador (1891), 2 Q. B. 
 574 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 15 ; 8 Mor. 264, and see notes to section 50. 
 
456 
 
 Section SO 
 
 Debts pay- 
 able at a 
 future time. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Debts Payable at a Future Time. 
 
 50. A creditor may prove for a debt not pay- 
 able at the date of the receiving order or of 
 the authorized assignment as if it were pay- 
 able presently and may receive dividends 
 equally with the other creditors, deducting 
 only thereout a rebate of interest at the rate 
 of six per cent, per annum computed from 
 the declaration of a dividend to the time 
 when the debt would have become payable 
 according to the terms on which it was con- 
 tracted. 
 
 Cross References Act: Debts provable, 44 ; Interest, 49 ; proof 
 of debts, 45: proof, by secured creditors, 46. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Proof of debts, 47, 48. 
 / 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, Schedule II.. Rule 22; 
 Canadian Acts, 1875, s. 80; 1864, s. 5(2) ; Ontario Assignments Act, 
 1914, o. 26(5) ; Manitoba Assignments Act, 1913, s. 25. 
 
 Under this section and section 44, not only may 
 proof be made for a debt payable at a future time, but a 
 liability to pay interest in the future may also be 
 valued and proved for. This modifies the rule in bank- 
 ruptcy that there can be no proof for interest accruing 
 subsequently to the date of the receiving order 3 . 
 
 The proper course in dealing with a debt payable 
 at a future time, bearing interest in the meantime, is to 
 be found in combining the rules and procedure laid 
 down in sections 44 and 50. The debt should be proved 
 as a present debt under section 44, and section 50 
 applied to the dividend payable on it. The liability 
 to pay interest should also be proved, and a dividend 
 paid on it without any rebate, for section 50 is con- 
 fined to debts. If therefore the debt bears interest at 
 six per cent., then the result will be the same as if the 
 principal sum is treated as a present debt not bearing 
 interest 4 . It has been suggested that if the interest 
 contracted for is more than six per cent., it ,is possible 
 
 3 See notes to section 49. 
 
 4 In re Browne & Wingrove ex parte Ador (1891), 2 Q. B. 574; 61 
 L. J. Q. B. 15 ; 8 Mor. 264, in which the history of the law with respect 
 to proof for interest accruing after adjudication, is given. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 4S7 
 
 that Section 44 may not be invoked so as to allow section 51 
 proof for the amount beyond the rebate 5 . 
 
 Priority of Claims. 
 
 51 (1) Subject to the provisions of the next Priority of 
 succeeding section as to rent, in the distri- c aims ' 
 bution of the property of the bankrupt or 
 authorized assignor, there shall be paid, in 
 . the following order of priority, — 
 
 Firstly, The fees and expenses of the trustee ; 
 
 Secondly, The costs of the execution creditor 
 (including sheriff's fees and disbursements) 
 coming within the provisions of section 
 eleven, subsections one and ten ; 
 
 Thirdly, All wages, salaries, commission or 
 compensation of any clerk, servant, travel- 
 ling, salesman, labourer or workman in 
 respect of services rendered to the bankrupt 
 or assignor during three months before the 
 date of the receiving order or assignment, 
 and all indebtedness of the bankrupt or 
 authorized assignor under any Workmen's 
 Compensation Act. 
 
 (2) Subject to the retention of such sums as Discharge. 
 may be necessary for the costs of adminis- 
 tration or otherwise, the foregoing debts 
 
 shall be discharged forthwith so far as the 
 property of the debtor is sufficient to meet 
 them. 
 
 (3) In the case of partners the joint estate Partners and 
 shall be applicable in the first instance in pay- States 1 * 
 ment of their joint debts, and the separate 
 
 estate of each partner shall be applicable in 
 the first instance in payment of his separate 
 debts. If there is a surplus of the separate 
 estates it shall be dealt with as part of the 
 joint estate. If there is a surplus of the 
 joint estate, it shall be dealt with as part of 
 
 ' Per Lindley, L.J., In re Brown & Wingrove ex parte Ador, supra, 
 at 582. 
 
458 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 51 
 
 Equal 
 payment. 
 
 Surplus. 
 
 Taxes. 
 
 the respective separate estates in propor- 
 tion to the right and interest of eaeh partner 
 in the joint estate. 
 
 (4) Subject to the provisions of this Act, all 
 debts proved in the bankruptcy or under an 
 assignment shall be paid pari passu. 
 
 (5) If there is any surplus after payment of 
 the foregoing debts, it shall be applied in 
 payment of interest from the date of the 
 receiving order or assignment at the rate of 
 six per cent, per annum on all debts proved 
 in the bankruptcy or under the assignment. 
 
 (6) Nothing in this section shall interfere with 
 the collection of any taxes, rates or assess- 
 ments now or at any time hereafter payable 
 by or levied or imposed upon the debtor or 
 upon any property of the debtor under any 
 law of -the Dominion, or of the province 
 wherein such property is situate, or in which 
 the debtor resides, nor prejudice or affect 
 any lien or charge in respect of such pro- 
 perty created by any such" laws. 
 
 Cross References Act: Restricted creditors, 48 ; ranking of 
 claims where joint and separate estates, 28(2) ; proof in respect of dis- 
 tinct contracts, 47; limited partnerships, 76; property of partners to be 
 vested in the same trustee. 69(3) ; partnerships generally, 69, 70; interest, 
 49 ; trustee not bound to accept duties unless sufficient for disbursements 
 and remuneration, 15(5) ; remuneration and disbursements of trustee, 
 40 ; " costs, charges and expenses of proceedings." 38 ; costs of adminis- 
 tration, 37(1) ; priority for rent where distrainable assets, 52; priority 
 of repayment of obligations and advances when trustee carrying on 
 business, 27; costs of execution creditor, 11(1) (10) ; property defined, 
 2(dd) ; debtor entitled to surplus, 38. 
 
 Cross References Rnles: Costs of petitioning creditor, 55; costs 
 out of joint and separate estate, 60 ; receiving order against a firm, 94 ; 
 liability of limited partners, 95. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: Canadian Act, 1S75, ss. 88, 91, 118; 
 English Act, 1914, s. 33: Dominion Winding-up Act, 1906, ss. 70. 92; 
 Ontario Assignments Act, 1914, s. 10; The Wages Act, R. S. 0. 1914, 
 c. 143, s. 3. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Order of priority. 
 
 Taxes. 
 
 Fees and expenses of trustee and landlord's preferred claim for three 
 
 months' rent. 
 Wages, salaries, commission or compensation. 
 Clerk, servant, travelling salesman, labourer or workman. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 459 
 
 Wages a charge on security under Bank Act. Section 51 
 
 Where not legislated for by Bankruptcy Act local law determines 
 
 priorities. 
 Section 51(3) Administration in partnership cases. 
 
 Section 51(3) to be distinguished from section 47. 
 Case to which section applies. 
 Exception in the case of joint creditors. 
 What is joint and separate estate. 
 
 1. Estoppel. 
 
 2. Agreement among partners on dissolution. 
 
 3. Effect of dissolution by bankruptcy of one 
 
 partner. 
 Partner may not compete with firm creditors. 
 Consolidation of estates. 
 
 Section 51 is not a conspicuously well-drafted or 
 well-considered section. In addition to the ambigui- 
 ties and obscurities of 51(1) (2), there is the fact that ' 
 section 51(3), to a certain extent, covers the same 
 ground as section 28(2). 
 
 The words. "and all indebtedness of the bankrupt 
 or authorized assignor under any "Workmen's Com- 
 pensation Act" were added by section 39 of The Bank- 
 ruptcy Act Amendment Act 1921. 
 
 Where the trustee is not carrying on any business Order of 
 of the debtor 6 , it would seem that the assets 7 of the priM * lty - 
 bankrupt are subject to distribution to satisfy claims 
 in the following order of priority 8 . 
 
 1. Payment to the landlord of an amount not ex- 
 ceeding the value of the distrainable assets, and 
 not exceeding three months' rent accrued due 
 prior to the date of the receiving order or assign- 
 ment, and the costs of the distress if any 9 . 
 
 2. The fees and expenses of the trustee. 
 
 3. The costs of the execution creditor. 
 
 4. Wages, salaries, commission or compensation, 
 etc. 
 
 • Section 27. 
 
 * What are the assets will depend partly on the action of secured 
 creditors and of the trustee with respect to property comprised in the 
 secured creditors' security. See ss. 46 and 22(2). 
 
 ' Where a debtor has obtained a discharge and has resumed business 
 with the knowledge of his creditors and that of the trustee and has 
 contracted debts and his discharge has been avoided, the subsequent credi- 
 tors are entitled to be paid out of his assets in priority to the former 
 creditors: Buchanan v. Smith (1870), 17 Gr. 208; 18 Gr. 41; for the 
 avoidance of the discharge is at the option of the former creditors. 
 
 "Section 52(1). 
 
460 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 51 
 
 It may be that under the wording of some particu- 
 Ta - lar statute with respect to taxes the Crown, in right 
 
 either of the Dominion or of the Province, will- be a 
 secured creditor with respect to the particular class of 
 taxes covered by that statute ; but in cases where no 
 such question arises a difficulty is raised by the word- 
 ing of subsection 51(6). It is submitted that were it 
 not for that subsection the combined effect of sections 
 86 and 51(4) would be that the Crown so far as it is 
 bound by section 86, would rank pari passu with other 
 creditors. Section 51(6) is ambiguous, and does not 
 necessarily cut down the combined effect of sections 
 86 and 51(4). It deals only with the "collection" of 
 taxes and the rights of the Crown by way of lien or 
 charge, and not necessarily with priorities of payment. 
 The provisions of sections 7(9) (10) The Income War 
 Tax Act 1917, c. 28, as amended by 1920, c. 49 (Dom.), 
 should not be overlooked 10 . 
 Fees and Section 51(2) appears to draw a distinction between 
 
 truste^and the fees and expenses of the trustee and the costs of 
 preferred administration 1 . This distinction supports the eonclu- 
 daimfor t s i n that the phrase "the foregoing debts", which is 
 rent. used in section 51(2), refers not only to wages, salaries, 
 
 commission or compensation, but also to the fees and 
 
 10 These' sections are quoted, in the notes to section 37. See for a 
 late case on the common law right of the Crown to priority of payment 
 over creditors of the same class. In re Laycock, Laycock v. Income 
 Tax Commissioners (1918-19), B. & C. R. 165; and for the right of the 
 landlord to be subrogated to the remedies of the municipality for taxes 
 which the tenant ought to have paid : Boone v. Martin (1920) , 47 0. 
 L. R. 205 (App. Div.). 
 
 1 With the expression fees and expenses of the trustee compare 
 sections 15(3) and 40. which speak of the remuneration and disburse- 
 ments of the trustee, and see English Rule 117. which reads: — 
 
 " The assets in every matter remaining, after payment of the actual 
 expenses incurred in realising any of the assets of the debtor, shall, 
 subject to any order of the court, be liable to the following payments, 
 which shall be made in the following order of priority, namely : — 
 " First. The actual expenses incurred by the Official Receiver in protect- 
 ing the property or assets of the debtor or any part thereof, 
 and any expenses or outlay incurred by him or by his authority 
 in carrying on the business of the debtor: 
 " Next. The fees, percentages and charges payable under Table B of 
 the Scale of Fees ; and any other fees payable to. or costs, 
 charges and expenses incurred or authorized by, the Official 
 Receiver ; 
 " Next. The fee which, under the Scale of Fees for the time being in 
 
 Priority of 
 costs and 
 charges pay- 
 able out of 
 estate. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 461 
 
 expenses of the trustee and to the costs of the execu- Section 51 
 tion creditor. So to hold is to give a somewhat arti- \ 
 
 ficial meaning to the word debts; but unless this con- 
 struction obtains, there will be difficulty in giving an 
 interpretation to the word "debts" in section 52(1) 
 which does not do an injustice to the landlord. It is 
 considered that the object of section 52(1) is to cut 
 down the landlord's right of distress, and to secure 
 him to the extent only of the last three months' rent 
 due : or to the extent of the distrainable assets, if they 
 are of less value than that. It was hardly intended 
 not only to deprive the landlord of his right of dis- 
 tress ; but also to make the distrainable assets subject 
 to all the fees and expenses of the trustee and the 
 costs of the execution creditor 2 . 
 
 The landlord's claim for rent accruing due after 
 the date of the receiving order, will be part of the ex- 
 penses of the trustee; for section 52(3) provides that 
 
 force, is required to be affixed to the copy - of the cash book 
 when forwarded for audit ; 
 
 " Xext. The deposit or deposits lodged by the petitioning creditor pur- 
 suant to these Rules ; 
 
 " Next. The deposit or deposits lodged on any application for the 
 appointment of an Interim Receiver ; 
 
 "Next. The remuneration of the special manager (if any) ; 
 
 " Next. The taxed costs of the petitioner ; 
 
 " Next. The remuneration and charges of the person (if any) appointed 
 to assist the debtor in the preparation of his statement of affairs ; 
 
 " Xext. Any allowance made to the debtor by the Official Receiver ; 
 
 " Next. The taxed charges of any shorthand writer appointed by the 
 court ; 
 
 " Next. The trustees' necessary disbursements other than actual expenses 
 of realization heretofore provided for ; 
 
 " Next. The costs of any person properly employed by the trustee with 
 the sanction of the committee of inspection ; 
 
 " Next. Any allowance made to the debtor by the trustee with the sanc- 
 tion of the committee of inspection ; 
 
 " Next. The remuneration of the trustee ; 
 
 "Next. The actual out-of-pocket expenses necessarily incurred by the 
 committee of inspection, subject to the approval of the Board 
 of Trade." 
 
 And see In re Bright ex parte Wingfield <£ Blew (1903), 1 K. B. 
 
 735 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 287 ; 10 Mans. 31. This rule gives priority to the 
 
 taxed costs of the petitioner. It may be that Rule 55 with which English 
 
 Rule 130 may be compared will be construed as giving to the petitioning 
 
 creditor a right to have his costs paid out of the estate in priority to the 
 
 unsecured creditors. 
 
 2 See per Orde, J., In re Auto Experts, Ltd., Ex parte Tanner 
 
 (1921). 19 O. W N. 532; Brians v. Sowry (1841), 8 M. & W. 729, 742; 
 
 and cf. Mason v. Hamilton (1872), 22 U. C. C. P. 190, 411. 
 
462 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Wages, 
 salaries, 
 commission 
 or compensa 
 tion. 
 
 section 51 the trustee shall pay to the landlord for the period 
 during which he actually occupies the leased premises 
 from and after the date of the receiving order or 
 assignment, a rental calculated on the basis of the 
 lease 8 . The fees and expenses of the trustee will not 
 be paid in priority to the repayment of moneys 
 advanced by a third party under an order of the court, 
 making them (subject to existing liens, charges or 
 encumbrances), a first charge on all the assets of the 
 company*. 
 
 See as to the liability of a receiver and manager 
 who, with notice of a preferential claim, exhausts the 
 assets of the company in making payments to ordinary 
 creditors, without first satisfying the .preferential 
 claim, Woods v. WinshiW. 
 
 The expression "wages, salaries, commission or 
 compensation" should be compared with the somewhat 
 ■ similar expression in section 48. The words in section 
 51(1), including as they do commission or compensa- 
 tion, in addition to wages and salary, are very wide. 
 The previous cases on commission were collected and 
 reviewed in Be Parkin Elevator Co., Ltd., Dunsmoor's 
 Claim". It has been held that a traveller's travelling 
 expenses are as much part of his wages as the fixed 
 sum 7 . 
 
 In the absence of proof of an agreement to that 
 effect, the taking of a negotiable instrument for wages 
 does not constitute payment of the debt so as to 
 deprive servants of their priority 8 . The assignee of 
 wage claims is entitled to the priority in payment 
 
 3 And for this rental the trustee will -be personally liable. See notes 
 to section 52. 
 
 *Keyes v. Hanington (1913), 13 D. L. R. 139. Where liquidators 
 have been authorized to complete a contract for the benefit of the estate 
 and in so doing adopt a prior contract between company and sub-con- 
 tractor for part of the work the sub-contractor's contract price is to be 
 divided into two parts, the first with respect to work done prior to the 
 liquidation ranking as an ordinary claim; the second' with respect to 
 work done thereafter being paid in full : Bishop Construction Co., Ltd., 
 Ilains v. Garth (1914). 15 D. L. R. 911. 
 
 5 (1913), W. N. 212. 
 
 B (1916), 37 O. L. R. 277. 
 
 * In re Morlock '& Cllne, Ltd. (1911), 23 O. L. R. 165. As to a 
 bonus see Allner v. Lighter (1913), 13 D. L.. R. 210. 
 
 8 Armstrong v. Watson (1919) , 45 D. L. R. 501. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 463 
 
 which, the statute accords to these claims 9 What is Section 51 
 payable is the balance of the wages of the three - 
 months next before the date of the receiving order ; not 
 as under the Ontario Act the wages, not exceeding 
 three months' wages 10 . 
 
 A winding-up order may in certain cases be notice 
 of discharge to the servants of the company from the 
 date of the order; as where the. concern is hopelessly 
 and irretrievably bankrupt, and there is nothing what- 
 ever for clerks to do ; but if there be actual business to 
 occupy the services of the clerks, they go on under the 
 old contract 1 . Under The Insolvent Act of 1869, prior- 
 ity was only given to those in the employ of the insol- 
 vent, so that a clerk who had left his employ because he 
 could not get his pay, lost his privilege 2 . 
 
 A director 3 is not a clerk, nor is the manager 4 , andcierk, 
 a fortiori, the managing director of a company is not a travelling 
 "clerk or servant" of the company within the meaning j a J es r m r ^ 
 of section 51(1) 5 . But a director may be a servant of workman, 
 the company in another capacity, and so entitled to 
 priority in respect to wages so earned 6 , although 
 where his services are mainly that of manager, and it 
 is impossible to apportion his salary between the dif- 
 ferent services rendered, he will rank only as an ordi- 
 nary creditor 7 . Under section 88 of 7 Edw. VII. c. 34, 
 
 'Porterfields v. Hodgins (1913), 29 O. L. R. 409; affd. 30 O. L. R. 
 651, and cases there cited ; In re Canadian Mineral Rubier Co. (1916) , 10 
 0. W. N. 456 ; 11 O. W. N. 135 ; contrast Eastern Trust Co. v. Boston 
 Richardson Mining Co. (1908), 5 E. L. R. 558; Olson v. Machin (1912), 
 4 O. W. N. 287. 
 
 a Ex parte Fox in re Smith (1886) , 17 Q. B. D. 4 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 
 288 ; 3 Mor. 63. Receiving order for this purpose includes an order 
 appointing an interim receiver; S. C See McLarty v. Todd (1912), 4 
 O. W. N. 172. 
 
 1 In re English Joint Stock Bank (1867) , L. R. 3 Eq. 341, contrast 
 Chapman's Case. L. R. 1 Eq. 346. 
 
 2 Ex parte Napier (1875). 3 Pugs. 134. 
 
 'In re Ritchie-Searne Co. (1905), 6 O. W. R. 474. 
 
 4 Girard v. Gariepy (1916) , 49 Q. S. C. R. 284 ; In re Shirleys, Ltd. 
 (1916), 29 D. L. R. 273. 
 
 "In re Newspaper Proprietory Syndicate, Ltd: (1900), 2 Ch. 349; 
 69 L. J. Oh. 578 ; 8 Mans. 65. 
 
 'In re Beeton & Co., Ltd. (1913), 2 Ch. 279; 82 L. J. Ch. 464; 20 
 Mans. 222; Armstrong v. Watson (1919), 45 D. L. R. 501. 
 
 1 In re S. E. Walker Co., Ltd. (1913) , 25 W. L. R. 164 ; 12 D. L. 
 R. 769. He is an ordinary creditor for an amount equal to three months' 
 wages ; but a restricted creditor for any wages exceeding that amount ■ 
 sec. 48(3). 
 
464 TBE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 51 The Ontario Companies Act, which read. "No by-law 
 for the payment of the president or any director shall 
 be valid or acted upon until the same has been con- 
 firmed at a general meeting, "it has been held that a 
 director cannot enforce a claim for payment of his ser- 
 vices as a commercial traveller unless a by-law author- 
 izing such payment has been confirmed at a general 
 meeting 8 . A secretary of a company may be a clerk 
 or servant of the eompany 9 , though a secretary who 
 does not give his whole time to the service of the com- 
 pany and discharges the general duties of his oflice by 
 a clerk appointed and paid by himself is not' a clerk or 
 servant of the company within the section 10 . It has 
 been said that the priority given by the section was 
 intended to apply to wages due in respect of personal 
 services rendered by the clerk or servant 1 . 
 
 Where services are rendered for weekly wages and 
 at definite hours, the employee may be a "servant", 
 even though during part of his time he works else- 
 where 2 . But contributors to a periodical are not clerks 
 or servants of the company publishing the periodical, 
 even though they may be paid in the main by salary 3 . 
 On the other hand, where a person in a mine is required 
 to work himself a stated number of hours each day, he 
 may be a labourer or workman, even though he is paid 
 by the amount of material he takes out 4 , and even 
 though he has under him other men for whose wages 
 he alone is responsible 5 . A foreman 's position is that 
 of workman and not of contractor, where, although he 
 
 "In re Morlock & CUne. Ltd. (1911), 23 O. L. R. 165; see pre- 
 viuus'y Fayne v. l.angiey. Lavender v Langley (1899), 31 O. R. 254. 
 
 'Cairney v. Back (1906) 2 K. B. 746: 75 L. J. K. B. 1014; 14 
 Mans. 58; see where though the claimant was the secretary the greater 
 part of his services were rendered as salesman; Re 8. E. Walker Co., 
 Ltd. (1013), 25 W L. R. 164; 12 D. L. R. 769. 
 
 10 Cairney v. Back, supra. 
 
 • S. C. 
 
 2 In re Morison & Co.. Ltd. (1912), 106 L. T 731. but see as to an 
 auditor In re Ontario Forge and Bolt Co., Townsend's Case (1896), 27 
 O R. 230; and accountant, Miquelon v. Vilandre (1914), 16 D. B. K. 
 316. 
 
 3 In re Beeton Co , Ltd. (1913), 2 Ch. 279 ; 82 L. J. C. Ch. 464; 20 
 Mans. 222. 
 
 •And semble such payment may be "wages": In re Western Coal 
 Co.. Ltd. (1913), 25 W. L. R. 26 ; 12. D. L. R. 401. 
 
 5 Ea> parte Allsop in re Disney (1875), 32 L. T. 433. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 465 
 
 is paid so much per thousand bricks produced, he is Section 5J 
 engaged by the week, may be discharged at a week's ~~ 
 notice, and is not allowed to select his workmen ; but a 
 person may occupy a dual position, being both a fore- 
 man and an independent contractor 7 . 
 
 It has been held under The Winding-up Act that Wages a 
 where a bank takes possession of the security men- g^^y n 
 tioned in section 88 of the Bank Act, and the company under Bank 
 goes into liquidation and the liquidator does not pro- 
 pose to take over the security, the bank, when it realizes 
 its security, must treat the three months ' wages of the 
 employees as a charge on the proceeds of the security, 
 and this independently of when they accrued, assuming 
 that none are statute-barred. In such cases the general 
 assets of the company will be relieved of any claims by 
 employees for wages to the extent of what the employ- 
 ees receive from the bank 8 . 
 
 Where they are not expressly or impliedly modi- where not 
 fled by federal legislation, the priorities of creditors r o? 1 D 1 y t Bank- 
 will be determined according to the provisions of the ™ptey Act 
 local law 9 . Thus the local law may determine the prior- determines 
 ityof the Crown 10 , or priorities inter se of privileged pnonUes ' 
 claims 1 , or, as was the case under The Winding-up Act, 
 the rights of landlords 2 . 
 
 The present subsection 51(3) was enacted by The 
 Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act 1920 3 . Section 2'8 (2), 
 
 'In re Field (1887), 4 Stor. 63. 
 
 'Tarn v. Robertson (1902), 9 B. C. R. 505, where the plaintiff was 
 a foreman at a salary of $50 a month and had also contracted to supply 
 labour and pack salmon at a stated price per case : i.e., by piece work. 
 He had preference only for salary. 
 
 8 In re Alberta Ornamental Iron Co. and The Imperial Bank of 
 Canada (1917). 35 W. L. R. 126; 1 W. W. R. 126. 
 
 See Exchange Bank of Canada v. The Queen (1885), 11 A. C. 
 157; In re Fashion Shop Co. (1915), 21 D. L. R. 479; White Star Hotel 
 Co. v. Turgeon (1916) , 17 Que. P. R. 299. 
 
 10 The Exchange Bank of Canada v. The Queen, supra. 
 
 1 White Star Hotel Co. v. Turgeon, supra. See section 63 as to the 
 discretion of the court. 
 
 5 In re Fashion Shop Co., supra. 
 
 2 The previous subsection read : 
 
 (3) In the case of partners the joint estate shall be applicable in p ar tners and 
 the first instance in payment of their joint debts, and the separate estate separate 
 of each partner shall be applicable in the first instance in payment of estates, 
 his separate debts. If there is a surplus of the separate estate, it shall 
 be dealt with as part of the respective separate estate in proportion to 
 the right and interest of each partner in the joint estate. 
 
 B.C.— 30 
 
466 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 51 
 
 S^51(3). 
 Administra- 
 tion in 
 partnership 
 
 See. 51(3) 
 to be distin- 
 guished from 
 Sec. 47. 
 
 which appears in the section devoted to set-off, to a 
 certain extent covers the same ground as section 51(3). 
 Section 28(2), however, is said to differ from 51(3) in 
 that under 28(2) there is no room for enquiry whether 
 there is joint estate as a test of the right of the sepa- 
 rate creditor to priority upon the separate estate. The 
 criterion is said to be the existence of joint and separate 
 debts not joint and separate property, so that if there 
 are separate debts they have the absolute preferential 
 right to payment out of the seperate estate, whether 
 or not there be joint estate 4 . This differs from the 
 rule under 51(3), for under that section joint creditors 
 of a partnership may rank against the separate estate 
 if there is no joint estate and no solvent partner 5 . It 
 may possibly be argued, however, that if there is no 
 joint estate, the joint claims cannot rank first on it as 
 28(2) requires. - 
 
 The rule set out in 51(3) was laid down in 172'8 by 
 Lord King in Ex parte Cook 6 and embodied in 1794 in 
 Lord Loughborough's order of Gth March 7 . A thorough 
 discussion of the rule would require a consideration of 
 the whole question of the administration in bankruptcy 
 of partnership estate. Such a discussion is outside the 
 scope of this work. Eef erence may be made to Lindley 
 on Partnership, where the matter is fully treated. The 
 following notes are no more than an introduction to 
 the subject. 
 
 The section under discussion does not apply to a 
 case where in the same instrument there is both a joint 
 and several liability, as where a promissory note is 
 signed by a partnership firm and also by the two mem- 
 bers in their individual names. In, such case the holder 
 of the note has distinct claims both against the joint 
 estate and against the separate estate 8 . Formerly a 
 rule existed in bankruptcy whereby in such case he was 
 put to his election as to which estate he wished to 
 
 'In re Walker (1881). 6 O. A. R. 169, 172. 
 
 5 See infra. 
 
 °2 P. Wi'.liams, 500. 
 
 ' 1 Mont. & Ayr. 454. 
 
 'Gordon v. Matthews (1909), 18 O. L. R. 340, 344; 19 O. L. K. 
 564 ; in effect overruling Frost <C- Wood Co. v. Stoddart (1908), 12 O. W. 
 R. 1133. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 4G7 
 
 receive dividends from . That rule has now been Section 51 
 changed by section 47, and he may on distinct con- 
 tracts such as those above mentioned rank and receive 
 dividends from each estate 10 . 
 
 The principle laid down in the section is that a case to 
 joint creditor is not entitled to rank against the sepa-^?£ n 
 rate estate, or a separate creditor against the joint applies, 
 estate until the separate or joint creditors as the case 
 may be have been paid in full. This rule, which 
 obtains in administration in bankruptcy and insol- 
 vency 1 , is different from the rule which is observed in 
 other cases 2 . So strongly has the rule been adminis- 
 tered, that an assignment of all the separate property 
 of a debtor for the equal and ratable payment of all 
 his individual creditors, and also all his partner- 
 ship •creditors, was set aside as giving an unfair 
 preference to the partnership creditors who had 
 no right to rank on the separate property until 
 the separate creditors were paid in full 3 . A credi- 
 tor whose proof is admitted against the separate 
 estates of two bankrupts who have been partners, 
 is not entitled to receive any dividend in respect 
 of interest accrued on his debt subsequently to the 
 date of the adjudication, until the joint creditors 
 have been paid the principal of their debts in full 4 . 
 
 "In re Chaffey (1870), 30 U. C. Q. B. 64. The rule firmly estab- 
 lished in England by Goldsmid v. Cazenove, .7 H. L. C. 785 was 1 by the 
 decision of the judicial committee of the Privy Council in Rolfe v- 
 Flower, L. R. 7 P. C. 27, declared applicable to the colonies where the 
 domestic insolvent law did not unequivocally exclude its operation. See 
 per Moss, J.A., In re Wilson, Carter v. Woodruff (1877), 2 0. A. R 151. 
 
 10 And see for similar result under the Act of 1875 In re Wilson 
 Carter v. Woodruff, supra, distinguishing In re Dodge a Nova Scotia 
 case reported in 8 U. C. L. J. N. S. 51. See where there was a con- 
 tract by partners to invest money, and a liability of one partner as trus- 
 tee, which is a liability arising. out of contract, In re Parkers ex parte 
 Sheppard (1887) , 19 Q. B. D. 84 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 338 ; 4 Mor. 135. 
 
 1 Martin v. Evans (1884) , 6 O. R. 238. 
 
 2 See Pollock Digest of the Law of Partnership 9th ed., 1909, pp. 
 151 et seq. At law on a judgment against a firm both the property of 
 the individual partners and the property of the firm is avai'able to 
 satisfy the execution: Bank of Toronto v. Ball (1884), 6 O. R. 653. 
 The Creditors Relief Acts were not intended to alter this rule, but merely 
 to abolish priority among execution creditors of the same class : In re 
 McDonagh v. Jephson (1889), 16 0. A. R. 107. 
 
 3 Martin v. Evans, supra. 
 
 l Ex parte Findlay in re Collie (1881). 17 Ch. D. 334; 50 L. J. Ch. 
 
468 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 51 Further, following the case of Bando de Portugal v. 
 WaddeW, it has been held that where partners own and 
 operate two separate businesses, one being called 
 Gillespie Elevator Construction Company, the other 
 Standard Coal Company, the partnership assets 
 should be "pooled and wound up as a single partner- 
 ship estate" for the joint. creditors of each of the busi- 
 nesses were creditors of but the one firm 6 . 
 Exception in Certain exceptions have been developed to the rule 
 jo?nt ase ° f that a joint creditor may not rank against the separate 
 creditors. estate until the separate creditors have been paid in 
 full ; but these exceptions will have to be read subject 
 to the effect to be given to section 28(2). Thus it has 
 been held that a joint creditor may prove his debt in 
 the first instance against the separate estate of a part- 
 ner if the debt has been incurred by means of a fraud 
 practiced on the creditor by the partners, or any of 
 them 7 ; or if there is no joint estate and no solvent 
 partner 8 . Further, a joint creditor may present a peti- 
 tion against an individual partner and in that way 
 may compete with the separate creditors in the receipt 
 of dividends, 9 and a joint creditor may so petition on 
 his joint debt, even though he has a separate debt of 
 sufficient amount to enable him to use it as the basis 
 for his petition 10 . And if the joint creditors pay the 
 separate debts they will be permitted to prove and 
 vote and receive dividends out of the separate estate 1 . 
 The question what is joint estate is one of fact, 
 not depending on representations made by the firm, 
 
 5 A. C. 161. 
 
 " In re Gillespie (1913), 23 M. L. R. 5 ; 23 W. L. R. 45. 
 
 ' Ex parte Adamson in re Collie (1878), 8 Ch. D. 807; 47 L. J. B. 
 103. 
 
 "Ex parte Kensington (1808), 14 Ves. 447; In re Budgett Cooper 
 v. Adams (1894) . 2 Oh. 557; 63 L. J. Ch. 817 ; 1 Man. 230. If there is 
 any joint estate, no matter how small or inadequate, the joint debts can- 
 not rank on the separate estate till the separate debts are paid : Ex parte 
 Kensington, supra. See further Ex parte Bradshaw, 1 G. & J. 90; Sm 
 parte Sadler, 15 Ves. 52 ; Ex parte Peake, 2 Rose 54 ; Ex parte Getter, 
 2 Mad. 262 ; Ex parte Smith. 2 Rose 63 ; E<a parte Barclay, 1 G. & J. 272. 
 See in the case of co-debtors not partners : Soare v. The Oriental Bank 
 Corporation (1877), 2 A. C. 589, 599, and cases there cited. 
 
 °Ex parte Acherman (1808), 14 Ves. 604. 
 
 "Ex parte Burnett in re Blake (1841), 2 M. D. & D. 357. 
 
 l Ex parte Chandler (1803), 9 Ves. 35, and see Ex parte Taitt 
 (1809). 16 Ves. 193; Ex parte Clarke (1799), 4 Ves. 677. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 469 
 
 for the bankrupts cannot, as against the joint creditors Section 51 
 by representations or contracts, prevent their estate what is joint 
 being distributed according to the law of bankruptcy*; ^separate 
 but it has been held that representations that there is 
 a partnership and that certain property is partnership s ° ppe 
 property, will be sufficient to require the administra- 
 tion of that property as joint estate, even though it 
 may work a hardship on the separate creditors of the 
 person to whom the property actually belongs 3 . This 
 doctrine does not infringe the rule that where property 
 belongs in fact to a partnership of two, and there is 
 only one ostensible partner, the doctrine of reputed 
 ownership does not apply ; for in such case the posses- 
 sion is quite consistent with the real title, and the 
 court will not treat the property of the firm as that of 
 the partner*. 
 
 If a partnership is dissolved and a bona fide agree- (2) Agree- 
 ment is come to between the partners to the effect thatpa^erson^ 
 what was the partnership property shall become the dissolution, 
 property of him who continues the business and after- 
 wards the firm or the continuing partner becomes 
 bankrupt, that which was the partnership property 
 cannot be distributed as the joint estate of the firm, 
 but must be treated as the separate estate of the con- 
 tinuing partner 5 . But in order that property of the 
 firm may have lost its character of joint estate by 
 agreement between the partners, the agreement must 
 have been made before the time to which the title of 
 the trustee relates back; it must not be tainted with 
 fraud; nor be still executory; nor leave the property 
 
 2 In re Collie eau parte Manchester Bank (1876), 3 Ch. T>. 481; 45 
 L. JVBank. 149. following Ex parte Council (1838), 3 Dea 201; 3 M. & 
 A. 581. 
 
 3 Ex parte Aroouin (1846), DeG. 359; Rowland v. Crankshaio 
 (1866), L. R. 1 Ch. 421; Ex parte Hay man in re Pulsford (1878), 8 
 Ch. D. 11; 47 L. J. Bank 54; The Codvitle Georgeson Co. v. Smart 
 (1907), 15 0. L. R. 357. 
 
 *Ex parte Hay man in re Pulsford (1878), 8 Oh. D. 11; 47 L. J. 
 Bank. 54 ; Reynolds v. Bowley (1S67) , L. R. 2 Q. B. 474 ; 36 L. J. Q. B. 
 247. Where there is in fact no partnership a representation by a stranger 
 that he is a partner will not, it seems, prevent him proving against the 
 estate of the debtor in competition with the persons to whom he made 
 the representation: Ex parte Sheen in re Wright (1877), 6 Ch. D. 235. 
 
 "Lindley on Partnership, Sth ed., 1912, at p. 817, and cases there 
 cited. 
 
470 THM BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 51 subject to the liens 6 of the partners for their own 
 " indemnity 7 . Where the joint property has thus be- 
 come the separate property of one partner, his estate 
 will be subject to the claims of both joint and separate 
 creditors 8 ; but not it seems where both separate and 
 joint estate still exist controlled and administered by 
 the partner who carries on the partnership business 9 . 
 (3) Effect An adjudication of bankruptcy against one partner 
 
 by tank- utl ° n ac ts as a dissolution of the partnership 10 , and the rule 
 ruptcy of one adopted by the courts is that the solvent partner shall 
 have the administration and liquidation of the part- 
 nership assets 1 , unless he be unable to exercise them as 
 would be the case if he were abroad, or mentally 
 afflicted, or an 'infant 2 . In such cases the" trustee in 
 bankruptcy of the insolvent partner conducts the liqui- 
 dation and holds the partnership assets in trust to do 
 so 3 . If the solvent partner is appointed receiver and 
 manager of the partnership estate, he will be required 
 on application of the trustee in bankruptcy of the 
 insolvent partner to give security, pass his accounts, 
 furnish the trustees with proper accounts, allow them 
 all reasonable access to the books 4 , and when the bal- 
 ances in his hands reach a certain amount pay them 
 into court, or into a joint account at a bank with the 
 trustee and himself 5 . The trustee is also entitled to 
 participate in profits made by the use of partnership 
 property after the dissolution 6 . 
 Paitnermay There is a further rule which should be mentioned 
 "■uh firm 6 e here, namely that a partner in a bankrupt firm is not 
 creditors. allowed to prove as a creditor in competition with the 
 
 "In re Walker (1881), 6 O. A. R. 169. 
 
 7 See Lindley, supra at p. 818. 
 
 8 Moorehouse v. Bostwick (1885), 11 O. A. R. 76; ilacdonald v. 
 Balfour (1892), 20 O. A. R. 404. 
 
 "In re Walker (1881). 6 O. A. R. 169. 
 
 10 In re Beauchamp Brog em parte Carr (1896), 3 Mans. 207. 
 
 1 S. C. The solvent partner has a right to get in and to insist on 
 setting in the assets of the dissolved partnership and Las even a right to 
 use for that purpose the name of the trustee in the bankruptcy on giving 
 him an indemnity: In re and ex parte Owen (18841, 13 Q. B. D. 113; 
 53 L. J. "Q. B. 863 ; 1 Mor. 93. 
 
 2 In re Beauchamp Bros., supra. 
 *S. C. 
 
 i Ex parte Stoveld (1823), 1 Gl. & J. 303. 
 
 " Collins v. Barker (1893), 1 Oh. 578; 62 IS. J. Ch; 316. 
 
 " CraiDshay v. Collins (1808), 15 Ves. 218, 229. 
 
THE BAXERUPTCY ACT. 471 
 
 creditors of the firm. He can neither compete with the section 51 
 joint creditors against the joint estate 7 , nor rank as a 
 separate creditor of his co-partner before the joint 
 creditors are paid in full 8 . There are, however, three 
 exceptions 9 to the rule first above stated : 
 
 1. Where the separate property of one partner has 
 been fraudulently dealt with as the property of the 
 firm 10 . 
 
 2. Where there are two distinct trades, carried on 
 by the firm and by one or more of the members of it 
 with distinct capitals 1 . 
 
 3. Where a partner has obtained his order of dis- 
 charge or has been otherwise discharged from the 
 joint debts and has afterwards become a creditor of 
 the firm 2 . 
 
 Although the rule that a partner may not rank as a 
 separate creditor, of his co-partner before the joint 
 creditors are paid in full benefits the separate credi- 
 tors of the co-partner, it is not for their sake, but for 
 the sake of the joint creditors of the partnership that 
 the rule exists. Therefore if the ranking of a partner 
 as a separate creditor of his co-partner will not injure 
 the joint creditors of the partnership he may rank. 
 Such a case occurs where apart from the claim of the 
 partner there will be no surplus of the separate estate 
 available for creditors of the joint estate ; or where 
 
 7 Ex parte Sillitoe (1824) , 1 Gl. & J. 374, 382 ; Ex parte Sargraves 
 (1788), 1 Cox 440; 11 Ves. 414; Ex parte Butterfield (1S47), De Gex 
 570 ; Ex- parte Edmonds, 4 DeG. F. & J. 488 ; Ex parte Brown, M. D. 
 & D. 718; Ex parte Gordon in re Dixon (1873) . L. R. 10 Ch. 160 ; L. R. 
 8 Ch. 555; 42 L. J. Bank. 41; Xanson v. Gordon (1876), 1 A. C. 195; 
 45 L. J. Bank. 89. 
 
 8 Ex parte Collinge, 4 DeG. J. & S. 533 ; Ex parte Carter. 2 Gl. & 
 J. 233; Exi, parte Rooinson, 4 D. & Oh. 499, but distinguish Ex parte 
 Todd, DeG. 87, and gee Hall v. Lannin (1879), 30 C C. C. P. 204. 
 
 ' I.indley on Partnership, 8th ed., 1912, p. 847. 
 
 10 Ex parte SiUitoe (1824), 1 Gl. & J. 374, 382; Ex parte Harris, 
 
 1 Rose 437; Ex parte Lodge in re Fendal (1790), 1 Ves. 166; and see in 
 the case of a liability created by the fraud of a co-partner : Baker ^ . 
 Dawlarn (1872), 19 Gr. 113, and the converse case of fraudulent con- 
 version of firm property by a partner; Read v. Bailey (1S77), 3 A. C. 
 94 ; 47 L. J. Ch 161. 
 
 1 Eip parte St. Baroe (1805) 11 Ves. 413; Ex parte Castel (1826), 
 
 2 Gl. & J. 124 ; Ex parte Cook, Mont. 228 ; Ex parte Kaye, 9 Mor. 269 ; 
 Ex parte Maude (1867), L. R. 2 Ch. 550; Ex parte Thompson (1834), 
 
 3 D. & C. 612. 
 
 2 Ex parte Smith, 14 Q. B. D. 394 ; Ex parte Atkins, Buch. 479. 
 
472 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Consolida- 
 tion of 
 estates. 
 
 section 52 all the joint debts have been paid or have, ceased to 
 ~ exist 3 . 
 
 The old bankruptcy rule was that where joint and 
 separate estates are so blended together as to render 
 it impossible to separate them the court will consoli- 
 date them ; but not where the accounts can be kept dis- 
 tinct; and the estates are not inextricably blended 
 when more than fifty per cent^ of the whole estate is 
 clearly separate assets 4 . 
 
 Right of 
 landlord to 
 distrain or 
 realize 
 rent to 
 cease, but 
 priority 
 accorded. 
 
 May prove 
 for surplus. 
 
 Bights of Landlord. 
 
 .52 (1) Where the bankrupt or authorized 
 assignor is a tenant having goods or chattels 
 on which the landlord has distrained, or 
 would be entitled to distrain, for rent, the 
 right -of the landlord to distrain or realize 
 his rent by distress shall cease from and 
 after the date of the receiving order or 
 authorized assignment and the trustee shall 
 be entitled to immediate possession of all 
 the property of the debtor, but in the dis- 
 tribution of the property of the bankrupt 
 or assignor the trustee shall pay to the land- 
 lord in priority to all other debts, an amount 
 not exceeding" the value of the distrainable 
 assets, and not exceeding three months' rent 
 accrued due prior to the date of the receiv- 
 ing order or assignment, and the costs of 
 distress, if any. 
 
 (2) The landlord may prove as a general credi- 
 tor for (i) all surplus rent accrued due at 
 the date of said receiving order or assign- 
 ment; and (m) any accelerated rent to 
 which he may be entitled under his lease, 
 
 "Ex parte Topping (1865), 34 L. J. Bank. 13 ; 4 De. J & S. 551; 
 In re and ex parte Head (1894), 1 Q_. B. 638; 63 It. J. Q. B. 206; 1 
 Mans. 38; In re Ruby, Trusts Corporation of Ontario v. Rtiby (1897), 
 24 O. A. R. 509. 
 
 4 In re Sydney Barker cC- Co. (1914) , 21 Mans. 238 ; In re Bidwer 
 ex parte Sheppard (1833) , M. & B. 415 ; 3 Dea. & C. 195. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 4?3 
 
 not exceeding an amount equal to three section 52 
 months' rent. 
 
 (3) Except as aforesaid the landlord shall not May not 
 be entitled to prove as a creditor for rent f orr ^ito/for 
 any portion of the unexpired, term of 'his™"^^ 
 lease, but the trustee shall pay to the land- term. 
 lord for the period during which he actually 
 occupies the leased premises from and after 
 
 the date of the receiving order or assign- 
 ment, a rental calculated on the basis of said . 
 lease. 
 
 (4) The trustee shall be entitled to continue in Continued 
 occupation of the leased premises for so long "Sled 011 
 as he shall require the premises for the pur-^u^ST by 
 poses of the trust estate, and any payment 
 
 to be made to the landlord in respect of 
 accelerated rent shall be credited against 
 the amount payable by the trustee for the 
 period of his occupation. The trustee may 
 surrender possession at any time but if he 
 shall occupy for three months or more be- 
 yond the date of the making of the receiving 
 order or authorized assignment the land- 
 lord shall be entitled to receive three months' 
 notice in writing of the trustee's intention 
 to surrender possession or three months' 
 rent in lieu thereof. After the trustee sur- 
 renders possession such of the landlord's 
 rights as are based upon actual occupation 
 by the trustee shall cease. 
 
 (5) Notwithstanding the legal effect of any Trustee may 
 provision or stipulation in any lease, where retahueased 
 a receiving order or authorized assignment ^ e ™^ en ° d 
 has been made, the trustee may at any time of overdue 
 while he is in occupation of leased premises assign lfase. 
 for the purposes of the trust estate and be- 
 fore he has given notice of intention to sur- 
 render possession, or disclaimed, elect to 
 
 retain the leased premises for the whole or 
 any portion of the unexpired term, and he 
 may, upon payment to the landlord of all 
 
474 
 Section 52 
 
 Security to 
 be given by 
 assignee of 
 leased 
 premises. 
 
 Trustee may 
 
 disclaim 
 
 lease. 
 
 Liability 
 if lie elects 
 to retain 
 and assign 
 premises. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 overdue rent, assign the lease to any person 
 who will covenant to observe and perform 
 its terms and agree to conduct upon the 
 demised premises a trade or business which 
 is not reasonably of a more objectionable or 
 more hazardous nature than that which was 
 thereon conducted by the debtor, and who 
 shall on application of the trustee be ap- 
 proved by the court as a person fit and pro- 
 per to be put in possession of the leased 
 premises. Provided, however, that before 
 the person to whom the lease shall be as- 
 signed shall be permitted to go into occu- 
 pation he shall deposit with the landlord a 
 sum equal to six months ' rent or supply to 
 him a guarantee, bond approved' by the 
 court in a penal sum equal to six months' 
 rent, as security to the landlord that such . 
 person will observe and perform the terms 
 of the lease and the covenants made by him 
 with respect to his occupation of such 
 premises. 
 (6) The trustee shall have the further right, at 
 any time before . giving notice of intention 
 to surrender possession, and before becom- 
 ing under obligation to give such notice in 
 case of intention on his part to surrender 
 possession,, to disclaim any such lease, and 
 his entry into possession of the leased prem- 
 ises and their occupation by him while 
 required for the purposes of the trust estate 
 shall not be deemed to be evidence of an 
 intention on his part to elect to retain the 
 premises nor affect his right to disclaim or • 
 to surrender possession pursuant to the pro- 
 visions of this^isection ; and if after occupa- 
 tion of the leased premises he shall elect to 
 retain them and shall thereafter assign the 
 lease to a person approved by the court as 
 bv subsection five hereof provided, the lia- 
 bility of the trustee, whether personal or as 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 475 
 
 trustee and whether arising out of privity section 52 
 of contract or of estate and as well all lia-~ 
 bility of the estate of the debtor shall, sub- 
 ject to the provisions of subsection one 
 hereof, be limited and confined to the pay- 
 ment of rent for the period of time during 
 which the trustee shall remain in posses- 
 sion of the leased premises for the purposes 
 of the trust estate. 
 (7) Where the bankrupt or authorized as- underlease 
 signor, being a lessee, has, before the mak-^as^nor? 
 ing of the receiving order or authorized if disc ? aim ? d 
 
 °. , ,°, „ , , or assigned, 
 
 assignment, demised by way of underlease by trustee 
 any premises and the trustee disclaims or^stedin 
 elects to assign the lease, the court may, "^debtor 8 ** 
 upon the application of such underlessee, 
 make an order vesting in the underlessee an 
 equivalent interest in the property, the sub- 
 ject of the demise to him, to that held by him 
 as underlessee of the debtor, but subject, 
 except as to rental payable, to the same lia- 
 bilities and obligations as the bankrupt was 
 subject to under the lease at the date of the 
 making of the receiving order or authorized 
 assignment, performance to be secured as 
 and pursuant to the same conditions as pro- 
 vided by subsection five of this section in 
 case of an assignment of lease made by the 
 trustee. The underlessee shall in such Rental 
 event be required to covenant to pay to the P ayable - 
 . landlord a rental not less than that payable 
 ' by the underlessee to the debtor and if such 
 last, mentioned rental was greater than that 
 payable by the debtor to the landlord the 
 underlessee shall be required to covenant to' 
 pay to the landlord the like greater rental. 
 The provisions of said subsection five shall 
 be read subject to these provisions so that 
 an underlessee. if he so desires, mav have 
 prior opportunity to acouire the right to the 
 possession, for any unexpired term, of the 
 
476 
 
 Section 52 
 
 Prior rights 
 of under- 
 lessee. 
 
 TUB BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 premises occupied or held by him of the 
 debtor, and further, if it shall seem to the 
 court most desirable in the interest of the 
 debtor's estate, and notwithstanding the 
 foregoing provisions of this subsection, a 
 prior opportunity to acquire,, pursuant to 
 subsection, five hereof, an assignment of the 
 head lease. 
 
 Cross References Act: Remedies against the property of the 
 debtor, 6(1), 7; priority of claims, 51; proof of debts, 45; permission of 
 inspectors to elect, assign, disclaim, 20(1) (4). 
 
 Cross References Forms: Notice of election to retain leasehold 
 property, 49 ; notice of disclaimer of lease, 50. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: Canadian Act, 1875, s. 74; and see 
 70-73; English Act, 1914, ss. 33(4), 35, ,54; Schedule II., Rule 20; 
 Ontario Landlord and Tenant Aci,-R. S. O. 1914, c. 155, s. 38. 
 
 Analysis op Notes. 
 
 Policy of section 52(1). 
 
 History of legislation. ' 
 
 Local law governs unless overborne. 
 
 Rights the landlord is deprived of. i 
 
 Cases to which the section does not apply. 
 
 Rights given to landlord by, 52(1). 
 
 Future rent. 
 Sees. 52(4) (5) (6) (7). 
 52(4) Accelerated rent. 
 
 Proof for damages against overholding tenant. 
 52(5) Lease voidable at option of landlord. 
 
 Lease vests in trustee who becomes personally liable. 
 52(5) Deals with leases containing forfeiture clauses. 
 
 Liability of tenant who elects to retain premises. 
 
 Sections 52(4) (5) (6) (7) are in the form in which 
 they were enacted by sections 40 to 43 inclusive of 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act 1921 5 . 
 
 / 
 
 * The previous sections read : 
 
 52(4). In case of continued occupation by the trustee of the leased 
 premises for the purposes of the trust estate any payment of accelerated 
 rent made to the landlord shall be credited to the occupation of the 
 trustee. 
 
 (5) Notwithstanding any provision or stipulation in any lease or 
 agreement, where a receiving order or an authorized assignment has 
 been made, the trustee may within one month from the date of any such 
 receiving order or assignment, by notice in writing signed by him given 
 to the landlord, elect to retain the premises occupied by the bankrupt or 
 assignor at the time of <^he receiving order or assignment for the unex- 
 pired term of any lease under which such premises were held or for such 
 portion of the term as he shall see fit, upon the terms of the lease and 
 subject to payment of the rent therefor provided by such lease or agree- 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 477 
 
 The policy of section 52(1) is no doubt the same as Section 52 
 that of similar legislation in other countries, namely p ii C y f 
 to place limitations upon the exceptional remedy f See - 52(1) - 
 the landlord when it comes into competition with the 
 interests of the general body of creditors, but not when 
 it comes into competition with the right of a third 
 party whose goods are upon the premises". Such a 
 case would be that of a chattel mortgagee 7 , where the 
 amount payable under the chattel mortgage, exceeds 
 the value of the goods 8 . The section is not applied in 
 such a case; for the only person to benefit would be 
 the chattel mortgagee . 
 
 The history of bankruptcy legislation in England History of 
 with respect to the special right of the landlord is lesislatlon - 
 given in Wilson v. Wallani 10 . The general effect which 
 bankruptcy has on the relationship between lessor and 
 lessee is fully treated in the leading books on Landlord 
 and Tenant. 
 
 The rights of the landlord being a matter of pro- Local law 
 perty and civil rights, will necessarily be determined^™ 55 
 by the local law so far as it is not changed by valid o^rbome. 
 Dominion legislation 11 . Under English law, apart from 
 
 ment, or he may disclaim the lease ov agreement. Should the trustee 
 not give such notice within the time hereinbefore provided, he shall be 
 deemed to have disclaimed the lease or agreement. 
 
 (6) If the trustee so elects to retain such premises for such unex- 
 pired term or portion thereof and the provisions of the lease do not 
 preclude the lessee from assigning the term or subletting the premises 
 the trustee shall have power to assign or sublet for the unexpired term. 
 
 (7) The entry into possession of the premises by the trustee during 
 the said period of one month shall not be deemed to be evidence of an 
 intention on the part of the trustee to elect to retain the premises nor 
 affect his right to disclaim the lease or agreement. 
 
 'Railtonv. Wood (1880), 15 A. C. 363. 
 
 7 Alderson v. Watson (No. 2) (1916), 36 O. L. R. 502. 
 
 8 Brockleliurst v. Lave (1857), 26 L. J. Q. B. 107; 7 E. & B. 176; 
 3 Jur. N. S. 436; New City Constitutional Club ex parte Purssell 
 (1887), 34 Ch. D. 646 ; and see infra, p. 480. 
 
 8 Brocklehurst v. Lawe, supra. 
 
 10 (1880), 5 Ex. D. 155. 
 
 11 This section affords a further illustration of the manner in which 
 The Bankruptcy Act and analogous federal legislation is superimposed on 
 local law. The Act for example nowhere defines what is meant by 
 distress, or the circumstances under which that right originates. Such 
 matters are assumed as part of the local legal substratum which may be 
 different in each of the provinces. The lex loci contractus will govern 
 unless altered by The Bankruptcy Act. See In re JSarte and Ontario 
 Express Co. (1892) 22 O. R. 510, which was the case of a claim in a 
 winding up in Ontario under the Dominion Winding-up Act based on a 
 lease executed in the Province of Quebec. 
 
478 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 52 statute, a landlord is not a secured creditor by reason 
 of the fact that he has a right to distrain 12 . In Quebec 
 as in Scotland 13 , the law is different. In Quebec the 
 landlord is under certain circumstances by reason of 
 Art. 2005 of the Civil Code 1 , a secured creditor for 
 rent that is due and to become due under a lease in 
 authentic form 2 . It has been held under The Winding- 
 Up Act that the claim of the lessor in Quebec is privi- 
 leged before that of clerks on the proceeds of the sale 
 of the. movable effects found on the premises; but his 
 privilege does not extend to moneys in the hands of the 
 liquidator which have been paid by the government as 
 indemnity for the refusal of the renewal of a liquor 
 license. 3 
 
 The changes made in the law by section 52'(1) can 
 be considered from two aspects; first of what rights 
 the landlord is deprived; secondly, what rights are 
 given to the landlord in substitution for those that he 
 has lost. 
 Eights the Section 52(1) purports to deprive a landlord 4 from 
 
 deprived of. and after the date of the receiving order or authorized 
 
 12 Thomas v. Patent hwnite Co. (1881), 17 Ch. D. 250, 257; 50 L. 
 J. Ch. 544. 
 
 13 In Scotland the landlord has a " real security without possession " 
 in respect of rent which has not yet accrued due : In re Warner, Ltd. 
 (1891), 60 L. J. Oh. 492, 495. 
 
 '2005. The privilege of the lessor extends to aU rent that is due 
 or to become due under a lease '"n authent : c form. But in the case of 
 the liquidation of property abandoned by an insolvent trader who has 
 made an abandonment in favour of his creditors the lessor's privilege 
 is restricted to twelve months' rent due and the rent to become due 
 during the current year if there remain more than four months to com- 
 plete the year; if' there remain less than four months' to complete the year 
 to the twelve months' rent due and to the rent of the current year and the 
 whole of the following year. If the lease be not in authentic form the 
 privilege can only be claimed for three overdue instalments and for the 
 remainder of the current year. 
 
 2 See further Mitchell Canadian Commercial Corporat'ons, 1916, 
 lip. 1538-40. 
 
 3 White Star Hotel Co., Ltd. v. Turgeon (1917), 17 Que. P. R. 299. 
 1 Where in a mortgage there is 1 a demise between the mortgagee and 
 
 the mortgagor so as to create the relation of landlord and tenant: Hobbs 
 v. Ontario Loan and Debenture Co. (1890), 18 S. C. R. 483, the section 
 will, no doubt, apply: Munro v. Commercial BuVding and Investment 
 Society (1875), 36 U. C. Q. B. 464; cf. In re Brown Bayley & Dixon 
 (1881), 18 Ch. D. 649. See The Mortgages Act, R. S. O. 1914, c. 112, 
 s. 14, which in certain cases limits the right to distrain to distress for 
 one year's arrears' of interest or rent. See in other cases Re Birming- 
 ham Gas Co., 24 U T. N. S. 639. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 479 
 
 assignment, of (1) his right to distrain on the goods of section 52 
 the debtor who is his tenant, (2) his right to posses- - 
 sion of and apparently his right to dispose of, those 
 goods for rent then due 5 . 
 
 There are cases to which the section does not apply. Cases to 
 
 (1) The landlord may distrain on the goods of auction does 
 stranger found on the premises when the insolvent is nota PP 1 5 r - 
 the tenant . 
 
 (2) The landlord may distrain on the goods of the 
 insolvent found on the premises when a stranger is 
 the tenant 7 . 
 
 (3) It may be that 52(1) will be read as not depriv- 
 ing the landlord of his right of distress for rent accru- 
 ing due after the date of the receiving order or author- 
 ized assignment 8 . 
 
 (4) The section does not by express words apply 
 to the privilege of a landlord given by the Civil Code. 
 
 (5) It was held under The Winding-Up Act that 
 the preferential lien given by The Ontario Landlord 
 and Tenant Act 9 in case of an assignment for the 
 general benefit of creditors might make a creditor a 
 secured creditor in winding-up proceedings where 
 there had been such assignment 10 . But section 9 of The 
 
 5 Under The Winding-up Act a landlord who has levied distress 
 previous to the commencement of the winding up may it appears realize 
 on the same : In re Shirley's, Ltd. (1916) , 29 D. L. R. 273 ; E. C. Colwell 
 Candy Co. (19,02), 35 >\ B. R. 613, contra Fuches v. Hamilton Tribune. 
 It was also held in McEdwards v. McLean (1878) , 43 U. C. Q. B. 454, 
 that where a landlord had distrained before assignment the assignee was 
 not entitled to possession of the goods unless he paid or tendered the rent 
 then due ; and that not having done so the landlord was entitled to pro- 
 ceed with the distress and realize by sale the rent due ; and compare per 
 Moss, C.J.O., In re McCracken (1879) , 4 O. A. R. 486. See infra, p. 484. 
 n. 3. 
 
 'Railton v. Wood (1890), 15 A. C. 363, and see per Burton, JA., 
 In re McCracken,. supra. 
 
 'In re Exhall Coal Mining Co. (1864), 4 DeG. J. & S. 377; Re 
 Carriage Co-operative Supply Assoc. (1883), 23 Ch. D. 154; In re Lundy 
 Granite Co. ex parte Heaven (1871), L. R. 6. Ch. 462; In re Regent 
 United Service Stores (1878), 8 Ch. D. 616, and see In re Oak Pits 
 Colliery Co. (1882) 21 Ch. D. 322. 
 
 8 Cf. Ex parte Heaven in re Lundy Granite Co. (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 
 462; Briggs v. Sowry (1841), 8 M. & W. 729; 11 L. J. Ex. 193. 
 
 "R. S. 0. 1914, c. 155, s. 38. 
 
 10 In re Fashion Shop Co. (1915), 33 0. L. R. 253; 21 D. L. R. 
 478; citing Lazier v. Henderson (1898) , 29 O. R. 673 and Tew v. Toronto- 
 Savings and Loan Co. (1898), 30 O. R. 76; In re Clinton Thresher Co. 
 (1910), 15 0. W. R. 318; 1 0. W. N. 445; Fuches v. Hamilton Tribune 
 Co. (1884), 10 P. R. 409. 
 
480 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 52 Bankruptcy Act purports to make null and void every 
 assignment of his property other than an authorized 
 assignment made by an insolvent debtor for the gen- 
 eral benefit of his creditors. 
 
 (6) The limitation of the landlord's rights is for 
 the general benefit of creditors, and in cases where 
 such limitation, while depriving the landlord of his 
 rights, will not benefit the creditors, but will benefit a 
 . third party, such as a secured creditor, the landlord 
 may distrain 1 . 
 Rights given In place of his remedy of distress, the section 
 b° 52a) rd directs t' ne trustee to pay to the landlord in priority to 
 all other debts an amount not exceeding the value of 
 the distrainable assets, and not exceeding three months' 
 rent accrued due prior to the date of the receiving 
 order or assignment, and the costs of the distress, if 
 any. The right to priority given by section 52(1)* 
 exists whether or not distraint has been made 2 , pro- 
 vided there were goods or chattels available for dis- 
 tress at the date of the receiving order or authorized 
 assignment. Where there is nothing on which a land- 1 
 lord can distrain, or where he has lost his right of dis- 
 - tress, he is in no different position from other credi- 
 tors 3 . What is meant by the phrase "in priority to all 
 other debts" has yet to be determined. It has been 
 suggested in the notes to section 51 that the phrase 
 means in priority to the fees and expenses of the trus- 
 tee, the costs of the execution creditor and wages, sal- 
 aries, commission and compensation 4 ^ The Act is 
 obscure in defining priorities, but so far as they are 
 
 1 As for example where goods have been mortgaged to debenture 
 holders in an amount greater than their value : New City Constitutional 
 Club ex parte Purssell (1887), 34 Ch. D. 646; Railton v. Wood (1890). 
 15 A. C. 363; Alderson v. Watson (No. 2) (1916), 36 O. L. R. 502; 
 Broeklehurst v. Lawe (1857), 26 L. J. Q. B. 107; 7 E. & B. 176; 3 Jur. 
 N. S. 436. The fact that the debenture holders offer to release their 
 security and stand as general creditors appears to be immaterial: "New 
 City Constitutional Club ex parte Purssell, supra, and see supra, p. 477. 
 
 2 In re Boshins and Hawtry (1877), 1 O. A. R. 379; Lazier v. 
 Henderson (1898), 29 O. R. 673. 
 
 *Ex parte Descharmes (1742). 1 Atk. 103; Anon. (1740), 1 Atk. 
 102; Bagge v. Mawby (1853), S Ex. 641; In re Kennedy, Mason V. 
 Iliggins (1875), 36 U. C. Q. B. 471. 
 
 * This is the correct interpretation. See per Orde, J., In re Avto 
 Experts, Ltd. ex parte Tanner (1921), 19 O. W. N. 532. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 481 
 
 defined there is no room for the doctrine that the Section 52 
 priorities of creditors will be determined according to — 
 the provisions of the local law 5 . 
 
 Under The Bankruptcy Act the landlord of a bank- 
 rupt tenant is, generally speaking, in a less favour- 
 able position than he was under the various Provincial 
 assignments acts, or than he is under The Winding -Up 
 Act". In one respect, however, he is in a better posi- 
 tion. It was held in Miller v. Tew 7 under the Ontario 
 Landlord and Tenants Act, which restricted the pre- 
 ferential lien of the landlord in the case of an assign- 
 ment for the benefit of creditors to one year 's arrears 
 of rent, but did not deprive him of his right of distress, 
 that where the goods were destroyed by fire subse- 
 quently to the assignment, the landlord had no lien on 
 the proceeds of the fire insurance, nor was he a pre- 
 ferred creditor. It is considered that under the word- 
 ing of section 52(1), the landlord would be entitled to 
 payment in such case out of the proceeds of the fire 
 insurance. 
 
 It is possible that the rent to which priority is 
 given is a sum equal to the last three months' rent, 
 whether or not that sum is- represented by a balance 
 due on the rent of more than three months 8 . Section 
 34' of The Bankruptcy Act of 1869 gave a right of dis- 
 tress "only for one year's rent accrued due prior to 
 the date of the order of adjudication." It was said 
 that the meaning of that section was that if a landlord 
 had been so weak as to allow his tenant to get into 
 arrear with his rent for more than a year he could, in 
 the event of the tenant's bankruptcy, only prove as an 
 ordinary creditor for the arrears beyond the year". 
 
 The landlord may not prove for future rent, but he Future rent. 
 
 5 See Exchange. Bank of Canada v. The Queen (1885) , 11 A. C. 157 ; 
 cf. in re Fashion Shop Co. (1915), 33 O. L. R. 253; 21 D. L. R. 478; 
 ~White Star Hotel v. Turgeon (1916), 17 Que. P. R. 299. 
 
 6 See The Winding-up Act, sections 23, 84. 
 ' (1909) , 20 O. L. R. 77. 
 
 , 'Cf. McLarty \. Todd (1912), 4 O. W. N. 172 on 10 Edw. VII. 
 e. 72, s. 3 (Ont.). 
 
 'Ex> parte Hale in re Binns (1875), 1 Ch. D. 285 ; 45 L. J. Bank. 
 21. 
 
 B.C.— 31 
 
482 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Accelerated 
 
 rent. 
 
 Sec. 52(4) 
 (5) (6) (7). 
 
 Section 52 has a claim against the trustee for rental during the 
 ~~ period that the premises are occupied by him 10 . 
 
 Semble, the words "three months' rent accrued 
 due" in section 52(1), may include rent which has 
 become due during the term by reason of the operation 
 of an acceleration clause 1 . As to whether an accelera- 
 tion clause dependent upon the bankruptcy of the lessee 
 is void as contrary to the spirit of the bankruptcy 
 laws, see Alder son v. Watson (No. I) 2 . A provision 
 that the current year's rent is to become due and pay- 
 able and the term forfeited ' ' in case any writ or war- 
 rant of execution shall be issued against the goods" 
 of the lessee is personal to the original lessor and 
 lessee and does not run with the land 3 . 
 
 Sections 52(4) (5) (6) (7) require amendment. As 
 they are not in final form it is not proposed to anno- 
 tate them fully. The practitioners will find a compari- 
 son of these sections with section 54' of the English 
 Act (1914) 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 59, as annotated in any of 
 the standard English books on Bankruptcy, of value. 
 
 Section 52(4) with respect to the crediting pay- 
 ments of accelerated rent, appears to have been in- 
 serted with the view ,of giving statutory expression to 
 the decision in Kennedy v. Macdonell*. As to what is 
 meant by surrender in section 52(4) queer e. See notes 
 to section 52(5). 
 
 It has yet to be decided whether a claim for dam- 
 
 10 Section 52(3). The trustee is personally liable for this rental. 
 per Orde, J., In re Auto Experts, Ltd. ex parte Tanner (1921)., 19 0. 
 W. N. 532. 
 
 1 AWerson v. Watson (No. 1) (1915), 35 O. L. R. 564; compare 
 section 51(4) and see Linton v. Imperial Hotel Co. (1889), 16 O. A. R. 
 337: Lanaly v. Meir (1898), 25 O. A. R. 372; Lazier v. Henderson 
 (1898) , 29 O. R. 673 ; Tew v. The Toronto Savings and Loan Co. (1898), 
 30 O. R. 76: Graham v. Lang (1886), 10 O. R. 248; Griffith v. Brown 
 (1870). 21 TJ. C. C. P. 12; Shackell v. Charlton (1895), 1 Ch. 378. 
 
 ' (1915), 35 O. L. R. 564; In re Hoshins and Hawtry (1877), 1 0. 
 A. R. 379 ; Linton v. Imperial Hotel Co. (1889), 16 O. A. R. 337. As to 
 a fraudulent preference see seeHnn 31. 
 
 'Mitchell v. MoCauley (1892). 20 O. A. R. 272. Osier, J.A., dis- 
 sented on the ground that the covenant was not a separate and inde- 
 pendent condition, but was to .be read in connection with the covenant 
 for the payment of the rent. It seems that a condition that the term is 
 lo be divested on bankruptcy concerns the things demised and runs with 
 the land. S. 0. per Maclennan, J.A., at 279; Stevens v. Copp (1868), 4. 
 Ex. 20, 24. 
 
 1 (1901) 1 O. L. R. 250. 
 
 Sec. 52(4). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 483 
 
 ages against an overholding tenant for double the Section 52 
 yearly value of the land under 4 Geo. II. c. 28, s. 1, is Proo ff or 
 a provable debt under section 44(1) 5 . agSnlf 
 
 Where a lease contains a proviso or condition that overholding 
 on breach of any of the covenants the lease shall cease, gec 52(5) 
 determine and be utterly void to all intents and pur- ^'^ void _' 
 poses whatsoever, such words will be construed to able at 
 mean void at the election of the lessor , and this is so°andiord. 
 even though the proviso be that the lease shall deter- 
 mine if the lessee should become bankrupt or insol- 
 vent. In such case if the landlord does not elect to 
 forfeit the lease he may prove 7 . 
 
 Apart from the terms of 52(5), a proviso forfeiting 
 the term on the bankruptcy of the lessor is valid and 
 will be given effect to 8 . 
 
 Subject to section 52(5) and to the right of the Lease vests 
 trustee in certain cases to refuse to accept the lease, ^o becomes 
 the effect of sections 6(3) and 10, is to vest the bank- personally 
 rupt's leasehold properties in the trustee who becomes 
 personally liable on the covenants, not only to pay 
 rent 9 in advance, if the lease calls therefor 10 , but also 
 on the other covenants as well 1 . 
 
 •See Magann v. Ferguson (1895), 29 O. R. 235. 
 
 Roberts v. Davey, 4 B. & Aid. 667. 
 
 1 Ex parte Leather Sellers Go. in re Tickle (1886), 3 Mor. 126. 
 
 'Kerr v. Hastings (1875), 25 U. C. C. P. 429. A proviso for re- 
 entry if " the lessee, his executors, administrators or assigns should 
 become bankrupt," has reference only to the bankruptcy of the person 
 for the time being possessed of the term: Smith v. G-ronow (1891), 2 Q. 
 B. 394 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 776. 
 
 9 Semble, the liab'lity of the trustee is personal, though he is entitled 
 to indemnity out of the assets: Wilson v. Wallani (1880), 5 Ex. D. 155; 
 49 L. J. Ex. 437; Titterton v. Cooper (1881), 9 Q. B. D. 473; 51 L. J. 
 Q. B. 472; Lazier v. Armstrong (1905), 5 O W. R. 596; Kennedy v. 
 Macdonald, 1 0. L. R. 254; Ex parte Dressier in re Solomon (1878), 9 
 Ch. D. 252; 48 L. J. Rank. 20; Ea> parte Carter in re Ware (1878), 8 
 Ch. D. 731. Where the trustee elects to retain the lease and so becomes 
 liable for the rent for the rest of the term the lessor cannot recover for 
 use and occupation, but is confined to his right to rent under the terms 
 of the Jease : Lazier v. Armstrong, supra 
 
 K Ex parte Bale in re Binns (1875), 1 Ch. D. 285; 45 L. J. 
 Bank. 21. 
 
 "/n re Levi & Co., Ltd. (1919), 1 Ch. D. 416 ; 88 L. J. Ch. 233, fol- 
 lowing In re Brown, Bayley & Dixon (1881), 18 Ch D. 649 ; In re SUk- 
 stoneand Dodworth Iron Co. (1881), 17 Ch. D. 158. Wher,e the lease 
 contains a covenant not to assign without leave an assignment by the 
 authorized trustee without leave is a breach of the covenant and a for- 
 feiture: Magee v. Rankin (1869), 29 U. C. Q. B. 257; Lazier v. Arm- 
 strong (1905), 5 O. W. R. 596. 
 
484 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 52 
 
 52(5) deals 
 with leases 
 containing 
 forfeiture 
 clauses. 
 
 Liability of 
 tenant who 
 elects to 
 retain 
 premises. 
 
 Under the English Apportionment Act of 1870, the 
 trustee who has accepted a lease is liable for the por- 
 tion of the rent accruing due from the date of the 
 receiving order down to the time when he assigns it 
 over or disclaims it or the term ends 2 . Following the 
 analogy of cases on section 163 of The Companies Act 
 1862, c 89, it may be that the landlord can distrain for 
 rent accruing due after the receiving order or assign- 
 ment 3 . 
 
 Although the question is not beyond doubt, the 
 words "notwithstanding the legal effect of any pro- 
 vision or stipulation in any lease" in section 52(5) 
 appear to apply only to leases containing provisions 
 or stipulations forfeiting the lease in the event of a 
 receiving order or authorized assignment being made. 
 
 Where there has been an election to retain the 
 premises under section 52(5) or generally 4 , the trustee 
 will remain tenant within the terms of the lease until 
 he assigns or makes a surrender at law. If he goes 
 out of possession, returns the key to the landlord's 
 agent and declares he will pay no more rent, he will 
 not thereby put an end to the term for that is no sur- 
 render 5 . But he might destroy the privity of estate and 
 rid himself of his liability by assigning the lease to a 
 pauper 6 . Should the trustee before the discharge of 
 the bankrupt assign the lease to a pauper and no rent 
 
 3 Swansea Bank v. Thomas (1879). 4 Ex. D. 94; 48 L. J. Ex: 344-; 
 Hopkinson v. Lovering (1883), 11 <Q. B. D. 92; In re Wilson ex parte 
 Lord Hastings (1893), 62 L. J. Q. B. 628; 10 Mor. 219; Bishop of 
 Rochester v. Le Fanu (1906), 2 Ch. 513; In re Howell ex parte Mandelr 
 berg & Co. (1895), 1 Q. B. 844; 64 L. J. Q. B. 454; 2 Mans. 192, and 
 see R. S. O. 1914, c. 156, The Apportionment Act. 
 
 ' See Ex parte Heaven In re Lundy Granite Co. (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 
 462. The cases on distress with respect to rent in arrear before the- 
 commencement of the winding up and after are discussed and classified 
 in Re Oak Pits Colliery Co. (1887), 21 Ch. D. 322. See, however, sec- 
 tions 7 and 13a and note 5, p. 479. 
 
 * Semite the provisions of 52(5) with respect to election to retain 
 will be strictly construed and must be strictly complied with if there is 
 to be a valid election to retain the premises. See as to notice under the 
 English practice: Wilson v. Wallani (1880), 5 Ex. D. 155; 49 L. J, Ex. 
 437. 
 
 " Connolly v. Coon (1896), 23 O. A. R. 37. Contrast Gold v. Ross 
 (1903), 10 B. C. R. 80. See as to the necessity of surrender by the 
 debtor under the old statutes: Tuck v. Fyson (1829), 6 Bing. 321; 
 Briggs v. Sowry (1841). 8 M. & W. 729. 
 
 Magill v. Young (1848) , 10 U. C. Q. B. 301 ; Hopkinson v. Lovermg 
 (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 92. 
 
THV BANKRUPTCY ACT. 485 
 
 is thereafter paid, the lessor has a right of action Section 53 
 against the bankrupt for breach of covenant to pay 
 rent. This it would seem is a provable debt within the 
 meaning of section 44 T . 
 
 As a general principle in bankruptcy a trustee Sec. 52 (6fr 
 need not accept a damnosa haereditas 8 . 
 
 In England when an assignment is made by a 
 debtor for the benefit of his creditors and subsequently 
 a trustee in bankruptcy is appointed who disclaims the 
 lease, the assignee is liable for the rent between the 
 assignment of the lease and the date of the adjudica- 
 tion in bankruptcy 9 . On disclaimer by the trustee, the 
 landlord will be able to prove against the estate for 
 damages for breach 10 . 
 
 Disalloivance of Claims. 
 53 (1) The trustee shall examine every proof Disallowance 
 and the grounds of the debt, and may re- 
 quire further evidence in support of it. If 
 
 '-See In re Sneezum ex parte Davis (1876), 3 Ch. D. 463; Wilson 
 v. Wallani (1880), 5 Ex. D. 155; 49 L. J. Ex. 437; Magill v. Young 
 (1848), 10 U. C. Q. B. 301, and cf. Newton v. Scott (1842), 9 M. & W. 
 434; 10 M. & W. 471; Phillips v. Sherville (1845), 6 Q. B. 944; 9 Jur. 
 179. 
 
 8 See as to the difference in this respect between trustees in bank- 
 ruptcy and executors WilUns v. Fry (1816), 1 Mer. 244, 265; 15 R. R. 
 110; and see Levi v Ayers (1878), 3 A. C. 842 1 ; 47 L. J. P. C. 83. In 
 cases to which s. 52(5) does not apply, there may be a distinction 
 between the rights of a trustee to his claim under an authorized assign- 
 ment and under a receiving order. See per Duff, J., in North-West 
 Theatre Co. v. MacKinnon (1916), 52 S. G. R. 589, 599. Where a debtor 
 executed a deed for the benefit of his creditors and the assignee also 
 executed it and acted under it, a lease not mentioned in -the deed was 
 held to have passed to the assignee so as to make him liable for Tent 
 though he had done no act specifically accepting it: White v. Hunt 
 (1870), L. R. 6 Ex. 32; Magee v Rankin (1869), 29 V. C. Q. B. 257. 
 Where a trustee entered into a special arrangement with the landlord 
 whereby the trustee guaranteed the rent so lonj» as he occupied the build- 
 ing, the landlord agreeing meanwhile not to distrain, the trustee was 
 deemed to have accepted the lease, and was held liable for the whole of 
 the rent accruing for- the remainder of the term : North-West Theatre 
 Co. v. MacKinnon (1916), 52 S. C. R. 589, especially per Duff and 
 Anglin, J.J. and see Linton v. Imperial Hotel Co. (1889), 16 O. A. R. 
 337. 
 
 * Stein v. Pope (1902), 1 K. B. 595; 71 L. J. K. B. 322; 9 Mans. 
 125. The difference between the English and Canadian Acts should be 
 observed. 
 
 "See under the Act of 1875 In re Erly (1878), 2 O. A. R. 617, 
 where it was held that the statute permitted proof for damages for can- 
 cellation both in the case of leases valid at law and also in the case of 
 leases valid in equity. 
 
486 
 
 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 53 
 
 Notice. 
 
 Appeal. 
 
 Court may 
 expunge or 
 reduce proof. 
 
 he considers the claimant is not entitled to 
 rank on the estate, or not entitled to rank 
 for the full amount of his claim, or if 
 directed by a resolution passed at any meet- 
 ing of creditors or inspectors, he may dis- 
 allow the claim in whole or in part, and in 
 such case shall give to the claimant a notice 
 of disallowance. The said notice may be 
 given either by serving the claimant with a 
 copy thereof personally or by mailing such 
 copy in a registered prepaid letter, addressed 
 to the claimant at his last-known address, 
 or at the address shown in or by the claim- 
 ant's proof. Such disallowance shall be 
 final and conclusive unless within thirty 
 days after the service or mailing of the said 
 notice or such further time as the court may 
 on application made within the same thirty 
 days allow, the claimant appeals to the 
 court in accordance with General Rules from 
 the trustee's decision. 
 (2) The court may also expunge or reduce a 
 proof upon the application of a creditor or 
 of the debtor, if the trustee declines to inter- 
 fere in the matter. 
 
 Cross References Act: Debts provable, 44; proof of debts, 45; 
 proof by secured creditors, 46 ; meetings of creditors, 42 ; inspectors. 43 ; 
 resolution means ordinary resolution, 2(//), 2(a), 42(141 service 'by 
 mail where no special mode directed, 83 ; computation of time, 82. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Notice of dividend is notice of admission 
 of proof, 116; appeal from decision of trustee to be by notice of motion 
 to a judge, 117 ; trustee in no casfe personally liable for costs in appeal 
 •from rejection of proof, 118 ; reckoning of days. 148. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Notice of disallowance of claim, 51. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, Schedule II., Rules 
 23, 25, 26 ; Canadian Act, 1875, ss. 93. 95 ; Winding-up Act, 1906, ss. 
 '85-00 ; Provincial Assignments Acts, R. S. O. 1914, c. 134, s. 27; 
 R S. M. 1913, c. 12, ss. 32, 33. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Admission and disallowance of claims. 
 
 Matters' with which trustee should be familiar when disallowing 
 
 claims. 
 
 Trustee entitled to require satisfactory evidence of debt. 
 
 Trustee may not disallow claim because of collateral dispute. 
 
 Setting aside a reserve to meet a claim. 
 
 Duty to disallow statute-barred debts. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 487 
 
 Claims of persons whose debts have been- released or discharged. Section 53 
 
 Creditors who attack a composition deed. 
 
 Creditors claiming as secured creditors. 
 
 Appeal from disallowance of proof. 
 
 Grounds of rejection. 
 
 Withdrawal of proof and tender of new proof. 
 
 Application to reduce. 
 
 Costs where debtor fails in motion to expunge. 
 
 PJnglish Eules 259, 260 provide for a time within Admission 
 -which proofs must be admitted or rejected. There is ^c e d ^f allow " 
 no such provision in our Act or Rules. It would seemda im s- 
 however that if the trustee does not disallow the 
 claim within a reasonable time he will be taken to have 
 admitted it 1 , although if the omission is by inadvert- 
 ence, and there appears to be a substantial objection 
 to the proof, the Court may give leave to the trustee 
 to apply to expunge it. 2 It was held under The Insol- 
 vent, Act of 1875, that where a secured creditor had 
 valued his security for the purpose of proof the 
 assignee should make his decision promptly whether 
 be would allow the creditor to retain his security at 
 the valuation given; and that the election of the 
 assignee to allow the creditor to retain the security 
 might be inferred from the fact that for six months 
 after receipt of the proof and valuation he had made 
 no move to dispute the valuation 3 . This case must, 
 however, be considered in the light of section 46(6) of 
 the present Act, which appears to put on the secured 
 creditor the onus of requiring the trustee to elect. 
 
 Before attempting to discharge the very important Matters with 
 duties with respect to disallowance of claims which ^hou^be 8 ** 6 
 have been confided to him by the Act, the trustee ^ Ui ?. r 
 should make himself familiar not only with the statu- allowing 
 tory provisions regarding proof of debts, proof by claims ' 
 secured creditors and provable debts, but also with the 
 rules which judicial interpretation has made part of 
 those sections. In addition to the matters mentioned 
 in the notes to sections 44, 45 and 46, there are several 
 other points which the trustee should bear in mind. 
 
 The trustee's duty when examining a proof for the 
 purpose of admitting or rejecting it is to require some 
 
 1 In re Russell ex parte Kemp (1873), 42 L. J. Bank. 26; 21 W. K. 
 460. 
 
 2 S. C. 
 
 3 Bell v. Ross (1885), 11 O. A. R. 458. 
 
488 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 53 
 
 Trustee 
 entitled to 
 require 
 satisfactory 
 evidence of 
 debt 
 
 Trustee may 
 not disallow 
 claim 
 because of 
 collateral 
 dispute. 
 
 satisfactory evidence that the debt on which the proof 
 is founded is a real debt. No judgment recovered 
 against a bankrupt, no covenant given by, or account 
 stated with him can deprive the trustee of this right. 
 He is entitled to go behind such forms to get at the 
 truth, and an estoppel to which the bankrupt may have 
 subjected himself will not prevail against the trustee 4 . 
 The rule in England has been said to go even so far 
 that when the only evidence of a debt is a judgment, 
 and the judgment has been recovered after an avail- 
 able act of bankruptcy, the judgment debt cannot be 
 proved in the bankruptcy 5 . The rule that on a proof 
 for a judgment debt the court will go behind the judg- 
 ment and ascertain whether there is a provable debt 
 does not apply to a proof for assessed taxes 6 . 
 
 It is a general rule that a trustee should not dis- 
 allow a claim on the ground that there is a dispute on 
 some collateral matter between him and the creditor. 
 Where for example the creditor has property in his 
 possession which the trustee asserts belongs to the 
 estate the claim should be admitted, but the dividend 
 may be withheld 7 . 
 
 * Per Cozens-Hardy, M.R., quoting Bingham, J., In re Tan Laun e» 
 parte Chatterton (1907). 2 K. B. 23, 30; 76 L. J. K. B. 644; 14 Mans. 
 91; Ex parte Kibble in re Onslow (1875), L. R. 10 Oh. 373; 44 h. X 
 Bank. 63. The Court may go into such matters at the instance of the 
 debtor himself even where the debtor has appealed against the judgment: 
 In re Fraser ex parte Central Bank of London (1892), 2 Q. B. 633; 9 
 Mor. 256; cf. McDonald v. Bohce (1865), 12 Gr. 48; r.nd contrast under 
 The Creditors' Belief Act, Bowerman v. Phillips (1888), 15 O. A. R. 679. 
 And see notes to section 4(6). The Court will go behind a judgm»nt 
 said Esher, M.R., in In re Flatau, ex parte Scotch Whiskey Distilleries 
 (1888) , 22 Q. B. D. 83, 85 ; when there is " evidence . . . tending to 
 show that there has been fraud, or collusion, or miscarriage of justice." 
 But this does not mean that where there is no allegation of fraud or 
 collusion the court is bound to go 'behind a judgment, even when the 
 court is of the opinion that the decision was not correct. The working 
 rule is ! that a Registrar can go behind a judgment which is by default 
 or compromise, but not when the judgment was given in open court 
 against a person who was represented: In re Howell (1915), 84 L. J. 
 K. B. 1399 ; 1 H. B. R. 173. 
 
 'Ex parte Bonham in re Tollemache (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 604; 54 
 L. J. Q. B. 388. Under our Act the title of the trustee does not relate 
 back as far as it does in England. See notes to s. 4(10). 
 
 "In re and ex parte Calvert (1899), 2 Q. B. 145; 68 L. J. Q- B ; 
 761 ; 6 Mans. 256. 
 
 7 Ex parte Dobson in re Thompson (1S34L 1 M. & A. 666; Ex parte 
 Williams, 4 D. & C. 180 ; Ex parte Barwis, 6 D. M. & G. 762; Ex parte 
 Marshall, M. & Bl. 242; 1 M. & A. 118, 145; Ex* parte Simpson, 1 
 Atk. 70. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 4gj) 
 
 Where a creditor's claim can not at once be ascer- Section 53 
 tained, it is probable that the court has jurisdiction setting 
 under section 63 to direct the trustee on application by aslde a t 
 
 rcsprvG to 
 
 the creditor to reserve a sufficient sum to meet the meet a claim. 
 claim 8 . 
 
 It is the duty- it seems of the trustee to set up the Duty to 
 Statute of Limitations where it is available 9 . ftatute^ 
 
 Where there has been a previous bankruptcy and barred debfs - 
 the debtor has been discharged, debts which wcre claimsof 
 provable in that bankruptcy are not provable wh^debts 
 under a subsequent deed of arrangement, even h * e v a e s d | 01 . 
 though the debt and name of the creditor have been discharged, 
 set out in the deed, unless the debt has been revived 10 . 
 Where creditors sign a composition deed containing 
 a release of the debtor from all claims and the debtor 
 is adjudicated bankrupt, the act of bankruptcy being 
 the execution of the deed, the creditors who have 
 signed the composition are not normally estopped from 
 proving in the bankruptcy ; for the intention is that the 
 release is to stand or fall with the rest of the deed. 11 
 
 Where creditors who are parties to a deed of Creditors 
 assignment or composition unsuccessfully seek to set ^ h C ompoS 
 it aside, they do not forfeit their rights under it. The tion deed - 
 case might be different if, not being originally bound 
 by the deed and having had an opportunity of electing 
 to accept or reject it, they elect to reject. 12 
 
 Where a bankrupt falsely represented to certain creditors 
 creditors that property which he proposed should be^ u ™^[ sas 
 mortgaged to the creditors as security for a further creditors, 
 advance was the property of his wife, and the advance 
 was made and the mortgage given, it was held that the 
 creditors, if they realized the property, could not 
 prove for the balance of their debt; for by so doing 
 
 » In re Lee ex parte Good (1880) , 14 Ch. D. 82 ; 49 L. J. Bank. 40. 
 
 'Gormley v. Dellois (1912), 11 E. L. :R. 575, 577, citing Ex parte 
 Dewdney (1808), 15 Ves. 479; and see E.r parte Kidd, 7 Jur. N. S. 613; 
 Ex parte Roffey, 2 Rose 245 ; and in the case of a voluntary liquidation : 
 In re Fleetwood and District Electrir Light and Power Sundicatc 
 (1915), 1 Ch. 486; (1915), H. B. R. 70. 
 
 10 In re Pilet, Ex parte Toursier (1915), 3 K. B. 519; 84 L. J. 
 K. B. 2133 ; (1915), H. B. R. 149. 
 
 11 In. re Stephenson ex parte 0. B. (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 540; 57 
 L. J. Q. B. 451 ; 5 Mor. 44. 
 
 "Gardner V. Kloepfer (1888), 15 S. C. R. 390, 396. 
 
490 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 53 they were claiming as secured creditors. If their claim 
 was in the nature of a claim founded on misrepresen- 
 tation different consideration's would arise. 1 
 Appeal from Where a creditor resident abroad appeals from the 
 of proof. ' rejection of his proof, the Court in England will only 
 in exceptional circumstances order him to give secur- 
 ity for costs. 2 
 Grounds of When the trustee rejects a proof the practice in 
 rejec on. j] n gi an( j i s for him to give the grounds of his rejec- 
 tion. The court has in one case, without desiring to 
 create a precedent, ordered him to give particulars of 
 the grounds of rejection set out in his notice. 3 
 withdrawal While a creditor may withdraw his proof and tender 
 tenderof 11 another at any time before it has been adjudicated on, 
 new proof. ^e ma y no j. w ithdraw it and tender a new one after an 
 adjudication on the merits ; though if the adjudication 
 touches only a point of form he may do so 4 . 
 Application Where creditors accept a composition offered by 
 
 to rcouop 
 
 the bankrupt, the fact that a proof has been on the file 
 of the proceedings in bankruptcy for over a year will 
 not estop the bankrupt from making an application to 
 have the proof reduced 5 . 
 Costs where If a debtor, after the date of the receiving order or 
 
 debtor fails- „ ,-. ,, . , , ° „ ,, , 
 
 in motion to oi the authorized assignment, moves unsuccessfully to 
 expunge. reduce or expunge a proof, the costs of the motion are 
 not provable in the bankruptcy ; but if after the date of 
 the receiving order he carries a composition extension 
 or scheme, he will be required to pay the costs of such 
 a motion in addition to what he pays under the com- 
 position 6 . The hardship upon creditors of putting 
 
 1 In re Gooksey ex parte Portal & Co. (1900), 83 L. T. 435. 
 
 'In re Pilling em parte Chapman (1906), 94 L. T. 682; In re 
 Semenza ex parte Paget (1894), 1 Q. B. 15; 63 L. J. Q. B. 278; 1 
 Mans. 18, explaining In re Vanderhaege ex parte Izard (1887), 20 Q. 
 B. D. 147; cf. In re Howe Machine Co., Fontaine's Case (1889), 41 Oh. 
 D. 118 as corrected In re Queensland Mercantile Agency Go. (1891), 61 
 T,. J. Ch. 48. 
 
 " In re Muntly, ex parte 'Goldstein (1917), 87 L. J. K. B. 590; 
 (1917), H. B. R. 270. 
 
 4 In re Deerhurst ex parte Seaton (1891), 8 Mor. 258. 
 
 'Ex parte Bacon in re Bond (1880), 17 Ch. D. 447. 
 
 "In re Pilling ex parte Surtee's Executors (1909), 2 K. B. 788; 78 
 L. J. K. B. 1107 ; 16 Mans. 280. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 491 
 
 them to almost irrecoverable costs is one of the rea- section 53 
 sons why in England a debtor is not usually allowed 
 to move to expunge a proof unless he has got a com- 
 position agreed to 7 . 
 
 ' S. C. citing In re Benoist (1909), 2 K. B. 784; 78 L. J. K. B. 
 1105; 16 Mans. 276; and see In re Calvert (1899), 6 Mans. 209; Ex 
 parte Bluck (1887), 56 L. J. Q. B. 607; 4 Mor. 273. 
 
492 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 PART V. 
 
 DEBTORS. 
 
 Section 54 
 
 Duty of 
 debtors to 
 submit 
 statement. 
 
 Inspection 
 by creditor. 
 
 Debtor to 
 attend first 
 meeting. 
 
 Duties of Debtors. 
 
 54 (1) Where a receiving- order or an autho- 
 rized assignment is made, the bankrupt or 
 assignor shall make out and submit to the 
 trustee a statement of and in relation to his 
 affairs in the prescribed form verified by 
 affidavit and showing the particulars of the 
 debtor's assets, debts, and liabilities, the 
 names, residences and. occupations of his 
 creditors, the securities held by them respec- 
 tively, the dates when the securities were re- 
 spectively given and such further or other 
 information as may be prescribed or as the 
 trustee may require. Such statement shall 
 be submitted within seven days from the 
 date of the receiving order or assignment, 
 but the court may, for special reasons, 
 extend the time. 
 
 (2) Any person stating himself in writing to 
 be a creditor of the bankrupt" or assignor, 
 may personally or by agent inspect the 
 statement at all reasonable times and take 
 any copy thereof or extract therefrom, but 
 any person untruthfully so stating himself 
 to be a creditor shall be guilty of a contempt 
 of court, and shall be punishable accord- 
 ingly on the application of the trustee. 
 
 (3) Every debtor against whom a receiving 
 order is made and every assignor who makes 
 an authorized assignment shall, unless pre- 
 vented by sickness or other sufficient cause, 
 attend the first meeting of his creditors, and 
 shall submit to such examination and give 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 493 
 
 such information as the meeting may section 54 
 -require. 
 
 (4) He shall give such inventory of his pro- Duties 
 perty, such list of his creditors and debtors, generaUy - 
 and of the debts due to and from them re- 
 spectively, submit to such examination in 
 respect of his property or his creditors, 
 attend such other meetings of his creditors, 
 
 wait at such times on the trustee, execute 
 such powers of attorney, conveyances, 
 deeds, and instruments, and, generally, do 
 all such acts and things in relation to his 
 property and the distribution of the pro- 
 ceeds amongst his creditors, as may be 
 reasonably required by the trustee, or may 
 be prescribed by General. Rules, or may be 
 directed by the court by any special order 
 or orders made in reference to any par- 
 ticular case, or made on the occasion of any 
 special application by the trustee, or any 
 creditor or person interested. 
 
 (5) He shall aid, to the utmost of his power, in To aid 
 the realization of his property and the dis- trustee - 
 tribution of the proceeds among his credi- 
 tors. 
 
 (6) If a debtor wilfully fails to perform the Penalty for 
 duties imposed on him by this section, or to perform 
 deliver up possession of any part of his pro- duties 
 
 lDQDOSGCl 
 
 perty which is divisible amongst his credi- 
 tors under this Act and which is for the time 
 being in his possession or under his control, 
 to the trustee, or to any person authorized 
 by the court to take possession of it, he shall, 
 in addition to any other punishment to 
 which he may be subject, be guilty of a con- 
 tempt of court, and may be punished accord- 
 ingly. 
 
 Cross References Act: Making of receiving order. 4(5); 
 authorized assignment, 9 ; statement of affairs on application for com- 
 position, 13(2) (3) ; offence of making material omission in, S&'(f) ; 
 offences of non-disclosure, etc., 89 ; examination of debtor and others 
 before registrar, 56, 65(2) (c) ; registrar has no power .to commit for 
 contempt, 65(3).; computation of time, 82; extensions of time, 68(5). 
 
494 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 54 Cross References Rules: Statement of affairs, 97(1) (2) (3); 
 
 computation of time, 148-151 ; applications to commit, 14-19, 48 ; debtor 
 
 attending first meeting entitled to witness fees in some cases, 113. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Statement of affairs, 52; notice to 
 debtor of meeting of creditors, 53 ; Application for committal for con- 
 tempt, 56, 54, 55 ; order for committal, 57 ; warrant for committal, 58 ; 
 order for discharge from custody on contempt, 59. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: 
 
 22(1) -(4) ; 1883, ss. 16, 24. 
 
 English Acts, 1914, ss. 14(1) (2) (4), 
 
 Sec. 54(1) 
 Statement 
 of affairs. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Sec. 54(1) Statement of affairs. 
 
 Effect of admission of debt in statement of affairs. 
 Joint and separate assets and debts to be distinguished. 
 Sec. 54(3) Examination of debtor at first meeting. 
 Sec. 54(4) (5) Duty to aid trustee to utmost of his power. 
 Committal for contempt under 54(6). 
 
 The duty imposed on the debtor of making out a 
 statement of his affairs is an important one. Under 
 previous Canadian Acts if the debtor did not make 
 full disclosure of his assets and later obtained 
 his discharge, a creditor might even some years 
 after the discharge obtain an order vacating the 
 discharge, and reopening the proceedings for the 
 due administration of the assets thus withheld 8 . The 
 answers given by a debtor at the meetings of his credi- 
 tors to questions put to him by his creditors respecting 
 his affairs are to be taken as part of his statement of 
 affairs 9 , and it would seem that information may in 
 certain cases be incorporated in the statement of affairs 
 by reference 10 . 
 
 'McOee v. Campbell (1882), 2 O. R. 130. The fact that the debtor 
 has omitted to make full disclosure may also arise on an application for 
 a discharge. See where a possib'lity of an interest under a will had 
 been omitted: In re Jones (1868), 4 P. R. 317, 324; and see whert 
 information omitted from the statement was supplied verbally at . the 
 first meeting of creditors: Be Martin and English (1880), 5 O. A. B. 
 647. Under The Insolvent Acts of 1869 and 1875 only a limited dis- 
 charge was given. The discharge was not from all liabilities whatsoever, 
 but only against such as were provable against the debtor's estate, and 
 " are mentioned and set forth in the statement of his affairs . . ." ; 
 Standard Bank of Canada v. Johnson (1877), 42 U. C". Q. B. 16, 19. 
 There is no such provision in The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 "In re and em parte Aaronson (1878), 7 Ch. D. 713; 47 L. J. Bank. 
 60; Ex parte Solomon in re Tilley (1882), 20 Ch. D. 281; 51 L. J. Ch. 
 677; of. In re Martin and English (1880), 5 O. A. R. 647. 
 
 10 In re and ex parte Amor (1882), 21 Ch. D. 594 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 138. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 495 
 
 Where the debtor's statement of affairs is incom- section u 
 plete, the trustee may require him to furnish addi- - 
 tional particulars and may obtain an order to this 
 effect 1 
 
 An admission made by a bankrupt in his statement Effect q£ 
 of affairs that a debt is due from him is not, after his deSTin"" 1 ° 
 death, admissible evidence against his trustee of the^™ entof 
 existence of the debt on the ground of its being 
 "against interest" merely because it might turn out 
 that there was a surplus 2 ; and the acknowledgment of 
 a debt contained in the statement of affairs will not 
 take it out of the Statute of Limitations 3 . But where 
 a debtor treats a debt as valid in his statement of 
 affairs, and on that basis obtains the acceptance of a 
 composition, he will be estopped from alleging its 
 invalidity 4 . 
 
 It was the case in liquidation by arrangement and Joint and 
 it would seem to be a proper rule in bankruptcy that ^eteand 
 where a debtor is a partner his statement of affairs J^sto be 
 should show both joint and separate assets and debts guisned. 
 and should distinguish between those which are joint 
 and those which are separate ; similarly where he has 
 recently been a partner or describes himself as a part- 
 ner, he should specify and distinguish joint and sepa- 
 rate assets and debts, and state expressly that there 
 are no debts and no assets of the partnership if such 
 is the case 5 . 
 
 The debtor is required to attend the first meeting See. 54(3) 
 of creditors and to submit to examination at it. This debtor at" 
 examination is to be distinguished from the formal first meeting, 
 examination provided for by section 56 which takes 
 place before -the registrar or other prescribed person. 
 
 1 See In re Davis ex parte Turnpenny (1892), 9 Mor. 278 Q. V., as 
 to the remedy of the trustee where he believes a statement of> the debtor 
 to be untrue. 
 
 2 Ex parte Edwards in re Tollemache (1884) . 14 Q. B. D. 415. 
 
 3 Everett v. RoUnson (1858), 28 L. J. Q. B. 23; Ex. parte Topping 
 in re Levey (1865) , 34 L. J. Bank. 44. 
 
 *Roe v. Mutual Loan (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 347; 56 L. J. Q. B. 541. 
 
 ' See E. R. 287 and In re and ex parte Cockayne (1873) , L.. R. 16 
 Eq. 218; 42 L. J. Bank. 71; Ex parte Gibbs in re Webb (1875), L. R. 
 10 Ch. 382; 44 L. J. Bank. 73; In re and ex parte Buckley (1881), 16 
 Ch. D. 513; In re and ex parte Amor (1882), 21 Ch. T>. 594; 52 L. J. 
 Ch. 138; In re Moore ex parte Philps (1874), L. H. 19 Eq. 256. 
 
496 TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 54 The debtor must be personally present at the meeting 
 ' of his creditors 6 . It is not sufficient that he be in a 
 room immediately adjoining that in which the meeting- 
 is held, even though the creditors are informed of this 7 . 
 The satisfactoriiiess of the cause of his absence is to 
 be judged of, not by the debtor or his solicitor but by 
 the creditors 8 . If any creditor desires to ask the 
 debtor questions the majority cannot prevent him from 
 doing so 9 . 
 
 It is a contempt of court to offer money to a bank- 
 rupt to purchase his silence on examination as to mat- 
 ters which it would be inconvenient to the briber to 
 have disclosed, even though such matters are suscep- 
 tible of a satisfactory explanation 10 . 
 Sec. The debtor is required to aid the trustee to the 
 
 -Duty to aid utmost of his power in the proper administration of 
 utmost of his ^ s es tate, the realization of his property and the dis- 
 power. tribution of the proceeds among his creditors. Thus 
 it is the duty of a debtor to assist his trustee by going 
 to court and giving evidence quite apart from any 
 subpoena 1 . 
 
 Under the provisions of The English Bankruptcy 
 Act 1869, s. 19 (a section analogous to s. 54(4)), it was 
 decided that the court had power to order the bank- 
 rupt to file a cash account of his receipts and pay- 
 ments for a specified period before his, bankruptcy; 
 but such an order ought not to be made except under 
 special circumstances, e.g. where the bankrupt while 
 in a large way of business was yet culpably negligent 
 in not keeping books 2 . 
 
 The obligations imposed on the debtor by section 
 54(5) (6) exist even after his discharge. Thus a part- 
 ner who after a discharge of the partnership estate 
 
 "In re and ex parte Best (1881), 18,Ch. D. 488; 51 L. J. Oh. 293; 
 Ex parte Hollender in re Cox (1883), W.N. 186. 
 
 ' In re and ex parte Best, supra. 
 
 8 See per Lord Selborne, L.C.. In re and ex parte Best (1881), 18 
 Ch. D. 488, 491 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 293. 
 
 'Per Cotton, L.J., In re and ex parte Best (1881), 18 Ch. D. 488; 51 
 L. J. Ch. 293. 
 
 10 In re Hooley, Rucker's Case (1898), 5 Mans. 331. 
 
 1 In re Fitzgerald ex parte Hoobs (1916), 2 H. B. R. 157. 
 
 'In re and exi parte Moir (1882), 21 Ch. D. 61; 51 L. J. Ch. 931; 
 In re and ex parte Cronmire (1894) , 2 Q. B. D. 246 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 616; 
 1 Mnns. 79. 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY 'ACT. 497 
 
 receives partnership-moneys and applies them in pay- Section 54 
 ing his separate creditors may be ordered to refund 
 the moneys, and on failure to obey the order may be 
 committed for contempt 3 . 
 
 But the duty to "do all such acts and things in 
 relation to his property and the distribution of his 
 property among his creditors as may be reasonably 
 required by the trustee", and "to aid to the utmost of 
 bis power in the realization of his property and the 
 distribution of the proceeds among his creditors" do 
 not include an obligation to submit to a medical exami- 
 nation with a view to a policy being effected on the 
 bankrupt's life 4 . It was decided under the corres- 
 ponding section of The English Bankruptcy Act 1883 
 and The Married Women's Property Act 1882', s. 1(5), 
 that a bankrupt married woman could not be compelled 
 to execute a general power of appointment in favor 
 of her trustee, the capacity to exercise a general 
 power of appointing property not being property 5 . 
 
 Under provisions analogous to 54(6), applications committal 
 have been made and debtors have been committed for^ d ™ n ||^ , ) t 
 failure to deliver up property to the trustee 6 , or to a 
 purchaser from the trustee 7 ; for refusal to execute a 
 power of attorney which was necessary to enable the 
 trustee to deal with part of the estate abroad 8 ; and for 
 non-compliance with an order for payment by instal- 
 ments of a portion of his salary to the trustee 9 . 
 
 The contempt of court referred to in section 54(6) 
 is probably contempt of a criminal nature. If so no 
 privilege from arrest can be claimed 10 . Anything 
 
 'In re and ex parte Waters (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 701: 43 L. J. 
 Bank. 128. 
 
 'Board of Trade v. Block (1888), 13- A. C. 570; 58 L. J. Q. B. 
 113; per Cave, J., In re Garnett ex parte Bullock (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 
 698, 699 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 77 ; 2 Mor. 286. 
 
 'Ex parte Gilchrist in re Armstrong (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 521; 55 
 L. J. Q. B. 578 ; 3 Mor. 93. 
 
 "In re and ex parte Waters (1874), B. R. 18 Eq. 701; 43 L. J. 
 Bank. 128 ; In re and ex parte Ashwm (1891) , 8 Mor. 130. 
 
 'In re and ex parte Burgoyne (1891), 8 Mor. 139. 
 
 'Ex parte Trustee in re Harris- (1896) . 3 Mans. 46. 
 
 'In re Pickard e® parte O. R. (1912), 1 K. B. 397; 81 L. J. K. B. 
 330; 19 Mans. 58. 
 
 "See Ex parte Lindsay in re Armstrong (1892), 1 Q. B. 327, 329, 
 330; 8 Mor. 271; In re Freston (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 545 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 
 545. 
 
 b.c— 32 
 
498 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 55 which interferes with the due administration of the 
 "~ estate in bankruptcy is a contempt. In such case the 
 proper practice is to apply to the court to commit, not 
 to apply for an injunction. On an application to com- 
 mit the court can prohibit acts interfering with proper 
 administration 1 . 
 
 On a motion to commit, the case must be strictly 
 proved if the bankrupt does not appear in response to 
 the notice of motion 2 . 
 
 Where there is another remedy open to the trustee, 
 the court may refuse to commit 3 . An appeal lies from 
 a refusal to commit, but the appeal court will be slow 
 to override the discretion of the court below*. Failure 
 to perform certain of the duties imposed on the debtor 
 is punishable under section 89. 
 
 Arrest of 
 debtors 
 under certain 
 circum- 
 stances. 
 
 Arrest of Debtors. 
 
 55(1) The court may, by warrant addressed to 
 any constable or prescribed officer of the 
 court, cause a debtor to be arrested, and any 
 books, papers, money and goods in his pos- 
 session to be seized, and him and them to be 
 safely kept as prescribed until such time as 
 the court may order under the following 
 circumstances : — 
 
 (a) If, after the presentation of a bank- 
 ruptcy petition against him, it appears to 
 the court that there is probable reason for 
 believing that he has absconded, or is 
 about to abscond from Canada, with a 
 view of avoiding payment of the debt in 
 respect of which the bankruptcy petition 
 
 1 In re Eliot, Pearce & Co., ex parte Allday and Bushill (1897),' 13 
 T. Ij. R. 4S6. 
 
 'In re Vaughan (1916), 2 H. B. R. 55. See as to proof of service 
 by post In re Piokard etc parte 0. R. (1912) , 1 K. B. 397 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 
 330; 19 Mans. 58; and as to notice given by telegram of the granting of 
 an injunction Ex parte Langley in re Bishop (1879). 13 Ch. D. HO; 
 49 T,. J. Bank. 1. 
 
 3 Ex parte Turnpenny in re Davis (1892), 9 Mor. 278. 
 
 'Jarmain v. Chatterton (1882), 20 Oh. D. 493; 51 L. J. Ch. 471; 
 and see Swinfen v. Smnfen, 26 L. J. O. P. 97. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 499 
 
 was Sled, or of avoiding appearance to section 55 
 any such petition, or of avoiding examina- - 
 tion in respect of his affairs or of other- 
 wise avoiding, delaying or embarrassing 
 proceedings in bankruptcy against him; 
 
 (b) If, after presentation of a bankruptcy 
 petition against him or after an authorized 
 assignment has been made by him, it ap- 
 pears to the court that there is probable 
 cause for believing that he is about to 
 remove his goods with a view of prevent- 
 ing or delaying possession being taken of 
 them by the trustee, or that there is pro- 
 bable ground for believing that he has 
 concealed or is about to conceal or destroy 
 any of his goods or any books, documents 
 or writings which might be of use to the 
 trustee or to his creditors in the course of 
 the bankruptcy or authorized assignment 
 proceedings ; 
 
 (c) If, after service of a bankruptcy peti- 
 tion on him or after he makes an autho- 
 rized assignment, he removes any goods 
 in his possession above the value of 
 twenty-five dollars without the leave of 
 the trustee. 
 
 (2) No payment or composition made or secu- Payments 
 rity given after arrest made under this see- after arrest- 
 tion shall be exempt from the provisions of 
 this Act relating to fraudulent preferences. 
 
 Cross References Act: Examination of debtor, 56. and see 
 54(3) ; enforcement and execution of warrants, 72; commitment to 
 prison, 73. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Warrants to be sealed, 10; to whom 
 warrant to be addressed, 44; duty of sheriff and other officers, 52; 
 custody and production of debtor, 45; execution of warrant, 46, 47;- 
 suspension of order of committal, 48 ; practice where witness refuses to 
 attend, 49; service and execution of process, 50-53; presentation of 
 petition, 76. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Warrant of seizure, 60; warrant of 
 arrest against debtor, 61. 
 
 i ™ Analoeons ^gislation: English Acts, 1914, s. 23; 1883, s. 25- 
 1869, s. 86. 
 
500 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 55 
 
 Sec. 55(1) (a) 
 only applies 
 where bank- 
 ruptcy 
 petition 
 presented. 
 
 Action for 
 malicious 
 arrest under 
 55(1) (a)(6). 
 
 Warrant 
 
 under 
 
 55(l)(c). 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Section 55(1) (a) only applies 1 where bankruptcy petition presented. 
 Action for malicious arrest under 55(1) (a) (6). 
 Warrant under 55(1) (c). 
 
 Warrant made on incomplete affidavit is bad. 
 
 Door may be broken open. 
 
 When warrant completely executed. 
 
 To whom bond for release from arrest should be given. 
 Custody of debtor charged with an offence. 
 
 It would appear that section 55(1) (a) is defective 
 in that it does not apply to a debtor who has made an 
 authorized assignment unless a bankruptcy petition 
 has been presented against him. Sections 55(1) (b) 
 and 55 (1) (c) apply in both cases. Until an amendment 
 is made to the section, this difficulty can be got over 
 by the presentation of a bankruptcy petition if the 
 creditor has a debt of the proper amount. The words 
 "has absconded" in 55(1) (a) which reads: "If after 
 the presentation of a bankruptcy petition against him, 
 it appears to the court that there is probable cause for 
 believing that the debtor has absconded, or is about 
 to abscond" are not limited as to time and permit of a 
 Warrant being issued when the absconding took place 
 before a petition was presented^. 
 
 Where a foreigner temporarily in Canada prepares 
 to leave the country the same presumption of an intent 
 to avoid payment of his debt does not necessarily arise 
 as in the case of a person domiciled in Canada 6 . 
 
 Semble, no action will lie against a person at whose 
 instance a warrant is issued under section 55(1) (a) (b), 
 unless the warrant was obtained by falsehood or fraud, 
 for the warrant is not issued by the plaintiff without 
 the intervention of any other authority, but is issued in 
 the discretion of the court 7 . 
 
 On an application for a warrant under section 
 55(1) (c), the creditor must produce an affidavit testi- 
 fying as a matter of fact that the goods are above the 
 
 6 Skinner v. County Court Judge of Northallerton (1898), 2 Q. B. 
 680; 68 I* J. Q. B. 24; affd. (1899), A. C. 439; 68 L. J. Q. B. 896; 6 
 Mans. 274. 
 
 ' See In re and ex parte Gutierrez (1879) , 9-Ch. D. 298 ; and see In re 
 and ex parte Crispin (1873) , L. R. 8 Ch. 374, 382 ; 42 L. J. Bank. 65. 
 
 ' See Daniels v. Fielding (1846), 16 M. & W. 200; and see Wills v. 
 Snook, 8-M. & W. a"s to the belief of the creditor of the intention of the 
 debtor to abscond. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 501 
 
 value of twenty-five dollars. An expression of belief Section 56 
 is not sufficient 8 . 
 
 If the warrant is expressed to be made on an affi- warrant 
 davit the jurat of which has not been signed, the war- ^complete 
 rant is bad, and will be discharged without prejudice affidavit is 
 to an application for a fresh warrant 9 . 
 
 As appears by Form 60, the warrant of seizure is Door may be 
 authority to break open the door of the defendant > s broken 0Den - 
 house if necessary. Similarly under a warrant of 
 arrest, although the form says nothing of this, the offi- 
 cer of the court in England may break open a door to 
 effect the arrest of the debtor 10 . 
 
 A warrant is not completely executed until the when 
 debtor is lodged in the prison named in the warrant, ^pieteiy 
 This may be important with respect to the fees of the executed. 
 bailiff or other officer charged with its execution. 11 
 
 Where a debtor has been arrested and proposes to to whom 
 give a bond with sureties to obtain his release f rom r°iease°f rom 
 prison, the bond should be given to the registrar in arrest should 
 bankruptcy. 1 If the bond is subsequently forfeited the 
 proceeds will as a general rule go, not to the Crown, 
 but to the creditors. 2 
 
 A debtor arrested under section 55(6) has been Custody of 
 ordered to be delivered over to a police officer bearing charged 
 a warrant for his arrest in respect of an alleged offence w * th an 
 under section 89(e). 3 
 
 Examination of Debtors and Others. 
 
 56 (1) Where a receiving order or an autho- Examination 
 rized assignment has been made, the trustee, another's. 
 upon ordinary resolution passed by the 
 creditors present or represented at a meet- 
 ing regularly called, or upon the written 
 
 'Ex parte McDowall m re Ross (1870), W. N. 176. 
 
 'In re and ex parte Heyman (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 488. 
 
 u In re Von Weissenfeld ex parte Hendry (1892) , 9 Mor. 3. 
 
 a Jm re Cropley ex parte Fox (1911), |2 K. B. 309; 80 L. J. K. B. 
 822 ; 18 Mans. 119. 
 
 1 In re Cordon, in re Salmond (1903), 2 K. B. 164; 72 L. J. K. B. 
 587. The form- of bond in use in England is given in the report of this 
 case. 
 
 2 S. C. 
 
 'In re Aoraham (1921), 1 C. B. It. 427 (Panneton, J.). 
 
502 
 Section 56 
 
 Punalty for 
 failure to 
 attend for 
 examination. 
 
 . Expenses 
 and fees. 
 
 Trustee may 
 require 
 books and 
 other 
 
 property of 
 debtor to be 
 produced. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 request or resolution of a majority of the 
 inspectors of the estate, may, without an 
 order, examine under oath before the regis- 
 trar of the court or other prescribed person, 
 the debtor or any person who is or has been 
 an agent, clerk, servant, officer, director or 
 employee of the debtor, respecting the 
 debtor, his dealings or property, and, in the 
 case of a bankrupt, as to any property, 
 acquired or disposed of by him subsequently 
 to the date of the receiving order. 
 
 (2) If the debtor, or any person liable to be 
 examined as provided by the preceding sub- 
 section, is served with, an appointment or 
 summons to attend for examination and is 
 paid or tendered the proper conduct money 
 and witness fees, but refuses or neglects to 
 attend 'as required by such appointment or 
 summons, or, if attending, refuses to make 
 satisfactory answers to any questions asked 
 him or refuses to produce any book, docu- 
 ment or other paper, having no lawful im- 
 pediment made known to the examiner at 
 the time of his sitting for such examination 
 and allowed by him, -the court may, by war- 
 rant, cause the debtor or other person so in 
 default to be apprehended and brought up 
 for examination, and may order him to be 
 committed to the common gaol of the judi- 
 cial district in which he resides for any 
 term not exceeding twelve months. 
 
 (3) The amount of conduct money andjwitness 
 fee shall be fixed by General Rules. 
 
 (4) If any person has, or is believed or sus- 
 pected to have, in his possession or power 
 any of the property of the debtor, or any 
 book, document or paper of any kind relat- 
 ing in whole or in part to the debtor, his 
 dealings or property, or showing that such 
 person is indebted to the debtor, such person 
 may, upon ordinary resolution passed by 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 503 
 
 the creditors present or represented at a section 56 
 regularly called - meeting (exclusive of 
 such person, if he is a creditor), or upon 
 the written request or resolution of the 
 majority of the inspectors of the estate, be 
 required by the trustee to produce such 
 book, document or paper for the informa- 
 tion of such trustee, or to deliver over to him 
 any such property of the debtor. 
 
 (5) If SUCh person fails to produce SUCh book, Examination 
 
 document or other paper, or to deliver over produce. 16 10 
 such property, within four days of his being 
 served with a copy of the said resolution 
 and a request of the trustee in that behalf, 
 or if the trustee or the majority of the in- 
 spectors is or are not satisfied that full pro- 
 duction or delivery has been made, the trus- 
 tee may, without an order, examine the said 
 person before the registrar of the court or 
 other prescribed person touching any such 
 property, book or document or other paper 
 which he is supposed to have received. 
 
 (6) Any such person may be compelled to Compelling 
 attend and testify, and to produce upon his attendance - 
 examination any book, document or other 
 paper which under this section he is liable 
 
 to produce, in the same manner and subject 
 to the same rules of examination, and the 
 same consequences of neglecting to attend 
 or refusing to disclose the matters in respect 
 of which he may be examined, as is provided 
 by subsections two and three of this section. 
 
 (7) If any person on such examination admits Admission 
 that he is indebted to the debtor, the court o£ debt - 
 may, on the application of the trustee, order 
 
 him to pay to the trustee, at such time and 
 in such manner as to the court seems expedi- 
 ent, the amount admitted, or any part 
 thereof, either in full discharge of the whole 
 amount in question or not, as the court 
 thinks fit, with or without costs of the ex- 
 amination. 
 
504 
 
 Section 56 
 
 Admission 
 of having 
 debtor's 
 property. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 (8) If any person on such examination admits 
 that he has in his possession any property 
 belonging to the debtor, the court may, on 
 the application of the trustee, order him to 
 deliver to the trustee such property, or any 
 part thereof, at such time, and in such man- 
 ner, and on such terms, as to the court may 
 seem just. 
 
 Cross References Act: Making of R. O., 4(5) ; of A. A., 9; 
 ordinary resolution, 2(z), 42(14) ; inspectors, 43; examination of debtor 
 at first meeting of creditors, 54(3) ; arrest of debtor about to abscond to 
 avoid examination, 55(1) (o) ; offence of not discovering to the trustee 
 all his property, 89 (o) ; property defined, 2 (id) ; property acquired by 
 bankrupt after date of R. O., 25(a) ; jurisdiction of registrar to hold 
 examination of debtor, 65(27(6). and to summon and examine certain 
 persons, 65(2) (h) ; registrar has no power to commit for contempt, 
 65(3) ; in case of death sealed deposition admitted as evidence, 81; 
 service by post, 83; enforcement and execution of warrants, 72; com- 
 mittment to prison, 73. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Persons before whom examination may 
 be held, 131; in what bankruptcy district examination may be held, 132; 
 appointment for examination may be granted in duplicate, 133 ; dupli- 
 cate to be served forty-eight hours before time for examination, 134 ; 
 witnesses entitled to fees and conduct money, 42 ; attendance of witness 
 on subpoena, 34, 35; order for examination of witnesses on oath, 37; 
 depositions may be taken in shorthand, 38; order of attendance for pro- 
 duction, 40 ; disobedience of subpoena or order a contempt of court, 41 ; 
 form of commission, 39 ; costs of witnesses may be allowed, 36 ; dis- 
 covery, interrogatories and examination for discovery, 43 ; warrants to 
 whom addressed, 44 ; duty of sheriff and other officers, 52 ; execution of 
 warrant under this section 46, 47 ; practice where witness refuses to 
 attend, 49 ; suspension of order of committal, 48 ; service and execution 
 of process, 50-52 ; service by post, 52 ; orders of court may be enforced 
 as if judgments, 53 ; computation of time. 148-151 ; proceedings to be in 
 chambers, 4 ; jurisdiction of registrar, 5 ; practice where not specially 
 provided for, 152 ; all proceedings to remain of record, 9 ; warrants to be 
 sealed, 10 ; no lien as against trustee on debtor's books of account, 145. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Appointment for examination of debtor 
 or others, 62 ; declaration by shorthand writer, 63 ; notes of examination 
 of debtor or others, 64 ; allowances to witnesses, Tariff ss. 89-91. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts, 1914, . ss. 15, 25 ; 1883, 
 ss. 17, 27 ; 1869, s. 96. Canadian Acts, 1875, ss. 23-26 ; 1869, ss. 112, 
 314. Winding-up Act, R. S. C. 1906, c. 144, ss. 117-121. Provincial 
 Assignments Acts, R. S. O. 1914, c. 134, ss. 38-41 ; R. S. M. 1913, c. 
 12. ss. 50-56 ; Alta. 1907, c. 6, ss. 52-58 ; R. S. B. C. 1911, c. 13, ss. 49-50. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Practice under section 56(1). 
 
 In England examination of debtor is public. 
 Examination of other persons in private. 
 Object of section. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 505 
 
 No " witness " may refuse to answer on the ground that the Section 56 
 
 answer may tend to criminate him. 
 
 English practice witness 1 may claim privilege but not debtor. 
 
 Debtor may not refuse to attend or answer. 
 
 Examination of witness is by the court. 
 
 Witness entitled to have counsel present. 
 
 Trustee must have some evidence that witness can testify. 
 
 Witness may 'be asked any pertinent question. 
 
 Who may be examined. 
 
 Examination may not be used for ulterior purpose. 
 
 Cannot order witness to furnish account in writing 
 
 Whether a creditor has right to require examination of person 
 under 56(1). 
 
 Whether debtor may be examined as judgment debtor. 
 
 Eight of witness to u copy of his examination. 
 
 Service. 
 
 Where witness ill examination may be at his residence. 
 
 Only recalcitrant person to be brought up by warrant. 
 Distinguish arrest under 56(2) and committal for contempt. 
 
 Form of warrant under, 56(2). 
 
 Punishment under, 56(2). 
 56(3) Recovery of conduct money and fee. 
 Section 56(4) (5) (6) machinery for the obtaining of evidence. 
 
 Books, documents and papers mentioned are not those of the 
 debtor. 
 
 Books must relate to debtor. 
 
 Clerk or servant may not be ordered to produce. 
 
 Depositions to be placed on file. 
 Whether section 56 may be invoked under composition. 
 
 The practice under section 56(1) has yet to be practice 
 determined, for the section follows neither The Eng- ^c%^(i). 
 lish Bankruptcy Act, the Provincial Assignments Acts 
 nor The Winding -Up Act. 
 
 The principal point of difference between The Eng- in England 
 lish Bankruptcy Act and the Canadian Statute lies in ** debtor iT 
 the fact that there is no section in our Act correspond- P ublic - 
 ing with the English section 15. That section makes 
 obligatory a public examination of the debtor as to 
 his conduct, dealings and property. The examination 
 is to be held as soon as conveniently may be after the 
 expiration of the time for the submission of the 
 debtor's statement of affairs, and therefore before the 
 first meeting of creditors. Creditors may be present 
 and may question the debtor concerning his affairs and 
 the causes of his failure. Under our section 56, the 
 examination is not obligatory. The debtor must, how- 
 ever, submit to examination at the first meeting of 
 creditors*. 
 
 4 Section 54(3). 
 
506 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 56 
 
 Examination 
 of other 
 persons in 
 private. 
 
 Object of 
 section. 
 
 No "witness" 
 may refuse 
 to answer on 
 the ground 
 that the 
 answer may 
 tend to 
 criminate 
 him. 
 
 The English section which most nearly corresponds 
 with section 56 is section 25, which has to do with dis- 
 covery of the debtor 's property, and with information 
 respecting the debtor, his dealings or property. As 
 is the case under The Winding-Up Act, the examina- 
 tion under that section is in private, for it is not a 
 judicial inquiry 5 , and the court if it has power to order 
 a public examination has such power only in the most 
 exceptional circumstances 6 . The debtor is not entitled 
 to attend when other persons are being examined, and 
 if he does attend he has no right to cross examine wit- 
 nesses 7 nor are the creditors entitled ex debito justitice 
 to be present 8 . The clause has been called the Star 
 Chamber clause 9 . 
 
 Thus in compressing two totally different sections 
 into one, difficulties have been raised. Whether the 
 traditional rule with respect to the private examina- 
 tion of other persons will be followed has yet to be 
 determined. The following notes give the law as it 
 exists under that practice. 
 
 The examination is for the purpose of obtaining 
 the fullest information about the debtor's property and 
 also to collect information which the court will have to 
 consider when the bankrupt comes to apply for his 
 discharge 10 , and should be liberally construed 1 . 
 
 No "witness" at an examination under section 56 
 (1)(5), may refuse to answer any question on the 
 ground that the answer may tend to criminate him; 
 but the answer given is not receivable in evidence 
 against him in any criminal trial other than a prosecn- 
 
 5 In re Greys Brewery (1883), 25 Ch. D. 400; 53 h. J. Ch. 262. 
 
 • See In re Property Ins. Co. (1914) , 1 Ch. 775 ; 83 L. J. Ch. 525. ' 
 
 'lure and ex parte Beall (1894), 2 Q. B. 135 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 425; 
 1 Mans. 203. 
 
 "In re Greys Brewery (1883), 25 Ch. D. 400; 53 L. J. Ch. 262; 
 In re Norwich Fire Ins. Co. (1884). 27 Ch. D. 515; 54 L. J. Ch. 254; 
 Ex- parte Swift in re Russell (1872), 26 L. T. 226. Under exceptional 
 circumstances' the debtor may examine a person claiming to be a creditor: 
 In re and ex parte Austin (1876), 4 Ch. D. 13; 46 L. J. Bank. 1; 
 cf. Ex parte Sheffield in re Austin (1879), 10 Ch. D. 434; Bird v. Phil- 
 pott (1900) , 1 Ch. 822 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 487 ; 7 Mans. 251. 
 
 See per Chitty, J., In re Greys Brewery (1883) , 25 Ch. D. 400, 408, 
 53 L. J. Ch. 262. 
 
 10 In re and ex parte Beall (1894), 2 Q. B. 135; 63 L. J. Q. B. 425; 
 1 Mans. 203; In re Sovereign Bank of Canada (1915), 34 O. L. R. 577. 
 
 *See per Armour, C.J., In re Guinane (1898), 18 P. R. 208. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 507 
 
 tion for perjury-. Semble, the debtor himself is a " wit- section 56 
 ness" who may not refuse to answer 3 . 
 
 Under the English practice a debtor may not refuse English 
 to answer a question on the ground that it tends to wunessmay 
 criminate him, but a mere witness may in a genuine cl ^? le „ € hnt 
 case claim privilege on that ground 1 . not debtor. 
 
 The court will allow the claim, when satisfied, not 
 merely from his statement, but from the circumstances 
 of the case and the nature of the evidence, that there is 
 reasonable ground to apprehend danger to the witness 
 from his being compelled to answer 5 . The practice in 
 England is not to press such questions when a charge 
 is hanging over the bankrupt; but this is a rule of 
 convenience only which need not be followed when the 
 balance of convenience is the other way 6 . An applica- 
 tion to postpone the examination, or to exclude for 
 the time being any questions on the ground that a 
 criminal prosecution for libel is pending, and that the 
 answers given at the examination might possibly be 
 used as evidence against the debtor at the trial, should 
 be made to the registrar and not to the court if the 
 examination is being conducted before the registrar 7 . 
 
 After a receiving order and adjudication have been Debtor may 
 made the debtor cannot refuse to attend for examina- attend "f to 
 tion on the ground that the receiving order should not answer, 
 have been made and the adjudication should be annul- 
 led 8 . A debtor may not refuse to answer questions 'on 
 
 2 Canada Evidence Act, R. S. C. 1906, c. 145, ss. 2, 5. See Be 
 Ginsberg, 40 0. L. R. 136, and the Provincial provisions there referred 
 to. 
 
 3 S«e per Hodgins, J.A., In re Ginsberg, 40 0. L. R. 136, at 142; 
 contrast per Rose, J., in Regina v. Fox (1899) , 18 P. R. 343, 357. 
 
 *Ex parte Scho field in re Firth (1877), 6 Ch. D. 230; 46 L. J. 
 Bank. 112. 
 
 'In re and ex parte Reynolds (1882), 20 Ch. D. 294; 51 L. J. Ch. 
 756; 46 L. T. 508, following Reg. v. Boyes (1861), 1 B. & S. 311; In 
 re Genese ex parte Gilbert (1886), 3 Mor. 223. 
 
 "In re Atherton (1912), 2KB. 251 ; 81 L. J. K. B. 791 ; 19 Mans. 
 126; and see further and as to whether the evidence so given can be 
 used against him: Reg. v. Scott (1856), 25 L. J. M. C. 128; Reg. v. 
 Widdop (1872), L. R. 2 C. C. R. 3, especially at 8 ; 42 L. J. M. C. 9; 
 Reg. v. Robinson (1867), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 80. especially at 90; 36 L. J. 
 M. C. 78; Reg. v. Erdheim (1896). 2 Q. B. 260; 65 L. J. M. C. 176; 3 
 Mans. 142; a direct question whether he has done some criminal act is 
 improper : Ex parte K-irly, M. & M. 225 ; Ex parte Cossens, Buck. 31. 
 
 'In re Butterfield (1890), 7 Mor. 293. 
 
 'In re and ex parte Clifton (1890), 7 Mor. 59. 
 
508 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 56 the ground that the property to which the questions 
 'relate is beyond the jurisdiction of the court. It is 
 his duty to make a full disclosure of his property 9 . 
 While it may he a rule of convenience that the trustee 
 should endeavour to obtain privately from the debtor 
 all the information which he may require before put- 
 ting the estate to the expense of an examination under 
 this section the debtor has no right to refuse to answer 
 questions put to him on his examination on the ground 
 that the trustee has not come to him privately, or ought 
 to have been satisfied with the information already 
 given 10 . 
 Examination A witness examined under the English section cor- 
 Vtne n court. responding to section 56(1), is a witness of the court, 
 and although it is convenient to allow the counsel or 
 other representatives of the trustee to put the ques- 
 tions, the conduct of the examination rests with the 
 court 1 . It is the duty of the registrar to stop counsel 
 if the question is one which is clearly irrelevant and 
 ought not to be put ; or if it misleads 2 , 
 witness Semble, a witness required to attend for examina- 
 
 have counsel tion under 56(2), is entitled to have counsel and solici- 
 present. £ or p resen t on his behalf, who may re-examine him for 
 the purpose of explaining his examination-in-chief 3 , 
 but he is not entitled to the costs of their attendance ; 
 unless possibly the object of the examination is to 
 obtain evidence to be used against him; as where it is 
 alleged that he has property of the bankrupt in his 
 possession 4 , or is in fact a principal party 5 . 
 
 9 See Re Butter field (1890) , 7 Mor. 293. 
 
 10 Ex parte Close in re Bennett (1877), 5 Ch. D. 145; 46 L. J. 
 Bank. 81. 
 
 l In re Scharrer ex parte Tilly (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 518; 5 Mor. 
 79 ; In re North Australian (1890), 45 Ch. D. 87; 59 L. J. Ch. 654. 
 
 2 Per Esher, M.R., In re and ex parte Pennington (1888) , 5 Mor. 
 216, 268 ; 59 L. T. 774. If the court finds that the answers o£ witnesses 
 have been suggested by counsel it will take this into account in consider- 
 ing the value to be placed on the answer : Re Tillett ex. parte Harper 
 (1890), 7 Mor. 286. 
 
 "In re Cambrian Mining Co. (1881), 20 Ch. D. 376; 51 L. J. Ch. 
 221 ; and may take notes for this purpose : In re Walker & Co. ex parte 
 CHlde (1909), 100 L. T. 860; 16 Mans. 207; 53 S. J. 486. 
 
 4 Ex parte Waddell in re Lutseher (1877), 6 Ch. D. 328. 
 
 1 See Ex parte Kemp in re Russell (1873) , 42 L. J. Bank. 26, at 28; 
 and cf. Ex parte Pratt in re Hayman (1882), 21 Ch. D. 439; 52 L. J. Oh. 
 120 ; and Eat parte Hall in re Cooper (1882) , 19 Ch. D. 580 ; 51 L. J- 
 Ch. 556. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 509 
 
 Before the trustee is entitled to examine a witness Section 56 
 under section 56(1), with respect to the debtor, his Trustee must 
 dealings or property, he must, it seems, have some^^, 
 evidence that the witness is capable of giving some witness can 
 information with respect to the debtor, his dealings or es x y ' 
 property". But if a witness properly called says that 
 he knows nothing of the debtor, his dealings or pro- 
 perty, the trustee is not concluded by this, and may ask 
 Mm questions which go to his credit, and test whether 
 his statement will stand or not 7 . 
 
 A witness may, it seems, be asked any question witness may 
 pertinent to the bankrupt, his dealings or property, ^y^inent 
 such as questions respecting the movements of the Question. 
 bankrupt's wife 8 , or the residence of the bankrupt's 
 father 9 ; and may even be required to answer questions 
 which refer to mere hearsay, for hearsay might put 
 the trustee on the track of the information he desires, 
 and there is no issue being tried under this section, the 
 object being to enable the trustee to get at the true state 
 of affairs 10 . Hence a solicitor who is being examined 
 may be required to disclose his client's residence, unless 
 it has been communicated to him confidentially in his 
 capacity of professional advisor 1 . 
 
 A former business manager of a partnership maywhomaybe 
 be examined under section 56(1), for he is within the examined - 
 words "agent, clerk, servant, officer or employee" 2 , 
 but a person who can give such evidence may not 
 decline to attend on the ground that the bankrupt 
 knows as much about the matters as the witness, or 
 that the witness is an arbitrator before whom certain 
 of the matters to be inquired into will com© for his 
 
 "In re Debtor ex parte Goldstein (1917), 1 K. B. 558; 86 L. J. K. 
 B. 705; (1917), H. B. R. 155, and unless there is prima facie evidence 
 that the property in dispute is the property of the bankrupt it may be 
 that the statute has no application : Ex parte Smith in re Bevan & Co. 
 (1881), 45 L. T. 447. 
 
 'In re Scharrer ex parte Tilley (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 518; 5 Mor. 79, 
 explaining In re Purvis, 56 L. T. (N. S.) 579. 
 
 'Ex parte Vogel (1818), 2 B. & Aid. 219. 
 
 'Ex parte Campbell in re Cathcart (1870), L. R. 5 Ch. 703. 
 
 10 In re The Ottoman Co., Ltd. (1867), 15 W. R. 1069. 
 
 1 Ex parte Campbell in re Cathcart (1870), L. K. 5 Ch. 703; In re 
 Arnott ex parte Official Receiver (1888), 5 Mor. 286; and see other 
 instances In re Wells ex parte Trustee (1892), 9 Mor. 116. 
 
 2 In re Guinane (1898), 18 P. R. 208. 
 
510 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 56 decision 3 . An examination under the corresponding 
 English section can only be directed by order of the 
 court; and a witness aggrieved by an order for Ms 
 examination should apply to the Court to rescind the 
 order 1 . 
 Examination An examination will not be permitted when its 
 used for c object is not to benefit the creditors in bankruptcy, but 
 purpose f° r ^ ne private advantage' in actions outside bank- 
 ruptcy of one or more creditors 5 . Nor may the trustee 
 examine under this section for the purpose of com- 
 pelling by an indirect method the production of 
 information which, he has been forbidden to ask for in 
 an action . Qucere, whether the trustee may use this 
 section to obtain discovery in an action between him 
 and a third party who claims certain property of the 
 debtor as his r . 
 Cannot order The section does not give jurisdiction to order a 
 
 witness to *i~ , t* • i i • -«- t* i «■ 
 
 furnish witness to furnish an account m writing of transactions 
 writing in between himself and the bankrupt 8 , 
 whether a It would seem that an individual creditor has no 
 
 Hght'ito has right to require the examination of a person under sec- 
 require tion 56(1); for the Act gives the creditors and the 
 of person inspectors the right of requiring such examination", 
 under 56(1). j t k as> h 0WeV er, yet to be decided whether an examina- 
 tion under section 56(1) is a "proceeding" within 
 section 3,5, which a creditor is entitled to take. Two 
 distinctions may be suggested : the first the difference 
 between examination of mere witnesses and of a person 
 
 3 In re MacDonald, Deakin & Jones (1914), 58 S. J. 798. 
 
 1 In re Debtor ex parte Goldstein (1917), 1 K. B. 558; 86 L. J. K. 
 B. 705; (1917), H. B. R. 155. 
 
 "In re Easton ex parte Davies (1891), 8 Mor. 168, and at 171; 64 
 L. T. 798; In re Desporles (1893). 10 Mor. 40; 68 L. T. 233; In re 
 Imperial Continental Water Corporation (1886) , 33 Oh. D. 314. 
 
 6 In re North Australian (1890), 45 Ch. D. 87 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 654. 
 
 J Ex< parte Gittins in re Franks (1892), 1 Q. B. 646; 40 W. R. 384; 
 9 Mor. 90. 
 
 8 In re and ex parte Reynolds (1882), 21 Ch. D. 601. 
 
 Compare under the English Act Ex parte Nicholson in re Willson 
 (1880), 14 Ch. D. 243; 49 L. J. Bank. 68; 43 L. T. 266; Ex parte 
 Crossley in re Taylor (1872), L. R. 13 Eq. 409; 41 L. J. Bank. 25; 
 Re Whicher ex parte Stevens (1888), 5 Mor. 173, where a cheditor 
 applied for permission to examine the trustee, the bankrupt and his 
 brother; In re Russell ex parte Smith, 26 L. T. 226; In re Wilson ex 
 parte Nicholson, 14 Ch. D. 243 ; In re and ex parte Austin, 4 Ch. D. 13. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 511 
 
 with whom litigation is pending or intended. 10 ; the Section 56 
 second the difference between an examination under 
 56 as an end in itself, and such an examination as part 
 of other proceedings. 
 
 It was held under the section of The Ontario Assign- whether 
 ments and Preferences Act, which most nearly corres- ^ ^3 
 ponds with section 56(1), that the making of an assign- ^ t u d r gment 
 ment for the benefit of creditors, did not deprive a 
 judgment creditor of his right to examine the judgment 
 debtor though it may in some cases furnish a reason 
 why the examination should not be made 1 , and this 
 right remained even after the insolvent assignor had 
 been examined under The Provincial Assignments 
 Act*. 
 
 While a witness as witness may have no right to a Right of 
 copy of his examination, he may have a right to it in ^p" S f ^° s 
 his capacity of creditor, particularly where the trustee examination, 
 is seeking to prove that he has been given a fraudu- 
 lent preference 3 . The practice in England where 
 one party proposes to make use of an examination 
 already on file in the court is not to allow the costs of 
 making a copy of it for service on the other party, for 
 he can make extracts of it from the file; but in certain 
 cases the cost of copies supplied for the use of the 
 respondent's counsel may be allowed*. 
 
 Section 56(2) is given in the form in which it now 
 stands as enacted by section 14 of The Bankruptcy Act 
 Amendment Act 1920, and amended by section 44 of 
 The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act 1921. 5 
 
 '"See In re Appleton, French, Scrafton & Co, (1905), 1 Ch. 749: 
 74 L. J. Ch. 471 ; 12 Mans. 335 ; Ex> parte Waddell in re Lutscher 
 (1877), 6 Ch. D. 328; In re Greys Brewery (1883), 25 Ch. D. 400; 53 
 L. J. Ch. 262. 
 
 l McEachren v. Gordon (1899), 18 P. R. 459. 
 
 'Bank of Hamilton v. Scott (1904), 3 O. W. R. 716, 717. 
 
 'Ex parte Pratt in re Hayman (1882), 21 Ch. D. 439; 52 L. J. Ch. 
 120. 
 
 'Ex parte Hall in re Cooper (1882), 19 Ch. D. 580 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 556. 
 
 1 The previous section read : 
 
 (2) If the debtor, or any person liable to be examined as provided Penalty for 
 by the preceding sub section, is served with an appointment or summons failure to 
 to attend for examination and is paid or tendered the proper conduct attend for 
 money and witness fee, but refuses or neglects to attend as required by examination, 
 such appointment or summons, or, if attending, refuses to make satisfac- 
 tory answers to any questions asked him or refuses to produce any book, 
 document or other paper, having no lawful impediment made known to 
 
512 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 5G 
 
 Service. 
 
 Where 
 witness ill 
 examination 
 may be at his 
 residence. 
 
 Only recal- 
 citrant 
 persons to be 
 brought up 
 by warrant. 
 
 Distinguish 
 arrest 
 under 56(2) 
 and com- 
 mittal for 
 contempt. 
 
 Service of the appointment or summons may be by 
 registered post in accordance with seetion 83 and rule 
 52 6 . The conduct money and witness fees may be sent 
 with the summons by registered post in money or 
 postal orders 7 . A duplicate of the appointment must 
 be served on the debtor or person to be examined at 
 least forty-eight hours before the time of examina- 
 tion 8 . Objections to the regularity of the service can 
 be waived 9 . 
 
 If the witness is too ill to attend, the court may by 
 virtue of this section and Eule 37 direct the examina- 
 tion to be conducted at the residence of the witness 
 before some prescribed person 10 . 
 
 The power given by section 56(2) tobring up a 
 person by warrant for examination and to commit him 
 to gaol for twelve months should only be used in the 
 case of recalcitrant persons 1 . 
 
 The power to order the person who has disobeyed 
 the summons to be apprehended and brought up for 
 examination is distinct from the power to commit for 
 contempt for disobedience of an order to attend for 
 examination 2 . An order of committal under section 56 
 is to be distinguished from one under seetion 54 ; under 
 56 the order is not punitive, and consequently privilege 
 from arrest may be claimed 3 . 
 
 No form of warrant has been provided for the 
 
 the examiner at the time of his sitting for such examination and allowed 
 by him, the court may, by warrant, cause the debtor to be apprehended 
 and brought up for examination, and may order him to be committed to 
 the common gaol of the judicial district in which he resides for any term 
 not exceeding twelve months. 
 
 6 Ex parte Official Receiver in re McOrath (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 466; 
 7 Mor. 20 ; In re Weinberg ex parte Official Receiver (1907) , 96 L. T. 
 790 ; 14 Mans. 277. Contrast the case of a subpoena which must be 
 served personally: Rule 35. 
 
 r In re Weinberg ex parte. Official Receiver, supra. 
 
 8 Rule 134. Under The Ontario Assignments and Preferences Act 
 service of a copy of the appointment and not of an original was suffi- 
 cient: In re Ferguson (1908), 17 O. L. R. 576. 
 
 9 In re Ferguson, supra. 
 
 l °In re Bradbrook ex parte Hawkins (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 226; 58 
 L. J. Q. B. 442 ; 6 Mor. 188, and see Rule 132. 
 
 1 In re Oeiger (1913), 109 L. T. 224. 
 
 *R. v. The Judge of The County Court of Surrey (1884), 13 Q. B. 
 D. 963 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 545 ; see Rule 37. 
 
 3 Ex parte Lindsay in re Armstrong (1892), 1 Q. B. 327; 8 Mor. 
 271. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 513 
 
 apprehension and production for examination of any Section 56 
 person liable to be examined who has not duly ap- Foi . m of 
 peared. In view of the provisions of Eules 46 and 47, warranty 
 it would appear that the English Forms 147 and 148 
 of the 1915 Eules may be followed 4 . 
 
 In a flagrant case of refusal to disclose his property Punishment 
 and transactions concerning his property, a debtor UIld€r56(2) - 
 was committed under the Ontario Act for 9 months 5 . 
 
 It seems that the allowances for witnesses set out56(3) re- 
 
 covcrv of 
 
 in sections 89 to 91 of the tariff of costs may be recov- conduct 
 ered by action if not paid by the trustee 6 . ?™ ey and 
 
 Section 56(4) (5) (6) is designed mainly to enable sec. 56 
 the trustee to obtain evidence by means of which he ^chine^y 
 can recover property belonging to and debts owing to for the 
 
 the debtor. . of evidence. 
 
 Books, documents and papers of the debtor are Books, docu- 
 "property of the debtor" which may be ordered to be m ^ s a m g n . 
 delivered over to him or his trustee 7 . They must be tio ^ are 
 distinguished from books, documents or papers relat- the debtor. 
 ing in whole or in part to the debtor, his dealings or 
 property 8 , which may consist of books, documents and 
 papers belonging to some third person, or books, 
 documents and papers which are the joint property of 
 the debtor and a third person 9 . The trustee is entitled 
 to all reasonable facilities for the inspection of books, 
 
 4 The reason for the provision in Form 147 for the detention of the 
 witness in custody appears in In re Weinberg exi parte Official Receiver 
 (1907), 96 L. T. 790; 14 Mans. 277. 
 
 'In re McLarty (1908), 12 O. W. R. 1171. 
 
 'Chamberlain v. Stoneham (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 113; 59 L. J. Q. B. 
 95. 
 
 'Sections 56(4), 17(1), 6(3), 25. But books of the debtor other 
 than boeks of account may be subject to a lien in favour of a third party ; 
 as may vouchers, counterfoils of cheques, correspondence and other 
 papers. Rule 145; Ex parte Godfrey in re Wmslow (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 
 696 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 238 ; 3 Mor.- 60. In such case the trustee is not 
 entitled to demand possession, but he may call for production of the 
 papers and other documents 1 for his inspection : In re Toleman and Eng- 
 land ex parte Bramble (1880) , 13 Ch. D. 885. The trustee is not entitled 
 to books of account which have ceased to be the property of the debtor ; 
 Em parte Good in re West (1882), 21 Ch. D. 868; 51 L. J. Ch. 831. 
 
 "Sec. 56(4). 
 
 •The trustee is entitled under section 56(4) to the production of the 
 mortgage deed of a secured creditor ; nor is there any privilege against 
 production on the ground that the mortgagee being a purchaser for value 
 without notice cannot be compelled to discover his title deeds : Ex parte 
 Caldecott (1830), Mont. 55. 
 
 b.c— 33 
 
514 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 56 
 
 Books must 
 relate to 
 debtor. 
 
 Clerk or 
 servant may 
 not be 
 ordered to 
 produced 
 
 Depositions 
 to be placed 
 on file. 
 
 Whether 
 section 56 
 may be 
 invoked 
 under com- 
 position. 
 
 documents or papers relating to the debtor, his deal- 
 ings or property 10 . Section 56(6) appears to provide 
 no penalty for failure to produce the required book, 
 document or paper; but the court has jurisdiction 
 under section 63 and Eules 40 and 41 to order the 
 production of books, documents and papers relating 
 to the debtor 1 . Semble, such jurisdiction is discre- 
 tionary 2 . 
 
 Under section 27 of The English Act of 1883, the 
 trustee was required to establish a prima facie case 
 that the books related to the debtor, his dealings or 
 property 3 . 
 
 A clerk or servant who only has possession of or 
 duties in connection with the books or property of the 
 debtor in his capacity as clerk or servant, cannot be 
 ordered to produce them, at least when his master is 
 available and may be communicated, with 4 , and has 
 not been made a respondent to the application 5 . 
 
 The depositions made under section 56(5) should 
 be placed on the file of the Bankruptcy Court immedi- 
 ately on being taken 6 . 
 
 As to whether a trustee or creditors under a com- 
 position extension or scheme can take advantage of 
 the provisions of section 56', see In re Goldstein 1 . 
 
 10 Ex parte Baker, Sutton & Co. in re Burnand (1904), 2 K. B. 
 68; 73 L. J. K. B. 413; In re Ash ex parte Batt (1913), 110 L. T. 48; 
 21 Mans. 15 ; 58 S. J. 174. During the course of the examination the docu- 
 ments may be ordered to be left in the custody of the court, but not of 
 the trustee : In re Ash ex parte Satt, supra. 
 
 "See In re Geiger (1913), 109 L. T. 224. For a form of appoint- 
 ment directing papers to be brought see In re Century Manufacturing 
 Co. (1921), 1 C. B. R. 469 (Lamarre, R.). 
 
 2 Ex parte Tatton in re Thorp (1881), 17 Ch. D. 512; 50 L. J. Ch. 
 792. 
 
 3 Ex parte Leigh in re Saunders (1896) , 13 T. L. R. 108. 
 
 * In re Higgs ex parte Leicester (1892) , 66 L. T. 296 ; In re Leightoa 
 (1866), L. R. 1 Oh. 331; 35 L. J. Bank. 43. 
 
 6 In re Davis ex parte Goodman (1898). 5 Mans. 329. 
 
 ' In re and ex parte Beall (1894), 2 Q. B. 135; 63 L. J. Q. B. 425; 
 1 Mans. 203 ; Rule 9. 
 
 7 (1917), 1 K. B. 558; In re Grant ex parte Whinney (1886), 17 
 Q. B. D. 238; 3 Mor. 118; Ex parte Close in re Bennett (1877), 5 Ch. 
 D. 146 ; 46 L. J. Bank. 81 ; In re Marks' Trust Deed (1866), L. R. 1 Ch. 
 429, on section 197 of the Act of 1861, 24 and 25 Vict. c. 134. Compare 
 section 13(15) of The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 51j 
 
 57. Where a receiving order is made against a section 58 
 debtor or where a debtor makes an autho- ite-direction 
 rized assignment, the court, on the applica- ^ t ^ or ' s 
 tion of the trustee, may from time to time 
 order that for such time, not exceeding three 
 months, as the court thinks fit, post letters, 
 post packets and telegrams addressed to the 
 debtor at any place or places mentioned in 
 the order for re-direction, shall, be re- 
 directed, sent or delivered by the Post- 
 master-General or the officers acting under 
 him, or by the various telegraph and cable 
 systems, government and other, operating in 
 Canada, or by the operators thereof, to the 
 trustee, and the same shall be done accord- 
 ingly. 
 
 Cross References Act: Making of R. O. 4(5) ; of A. A., 9. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Order to Postmaster-General, 65. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts, 1914, s. 24; 1883, s. 26; 
 1869, s. 85. 
 
 It was held under, the provisions of section 85 of 
 The English -Bankruptcy Act (1869), that the right to 
 apply is confined to the trustee 8 . Form 65, which has 
 been copied from the English form 140, does not apply 
 to telegraph or cable systems. 
 
 Discharge of Bankrupt or Assignor. 
 
 58 (1) Any debtor may, at any time after Application 
 being adjudged bankrupt or making an for discll F« e 
 authorized assignment, apply to the court 
 for an order of discharge, to become effective 
 not sooner than three months next after the 
 date of his being adjudged bankrupt or of 
 his making such assignment, and the court 
 shall appoint a day for hearing the applica- 
 tion. 
 
 (2) A bankrupt or authorized assignor intend- Notice to 
 ing to apply for his discharge shall produce £^£ g rs o£ 
 
 'Ex parte Lister in re Halberstam (1881), 17 Ch. D. 518. 
 
516 
 Section 58 
 
 Trustee to 
 file report 
 with 
 registrar. 
 
 Court may 
 grant or 
 refuse 
 discharge. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 to the registrar of the court a certificate 
 from the trustee specifying the names and 
 addresses of his creditors of whom the trus- 
 tee has notice (whether they have proved or 
 not) and it shall be the duty of the trustee 
 • to furnish such certificate upon request 
 therefor by the bankrupt or authorized 
 assignor. The registrar shall, not less than 
 twenty-eight days before the day appointed 
 for hearing the application, give to the trus- 
 tee notice of the application and of the time 
 and place of the hearing of it, and the trus- 
 tee shall not less than fourteen days before 
 the day appointed for hearing the applica- 
 tion give to each creditor who has proved 
 his debt like notice. 
 
 (3) The trustee shall file with the registrar of 
 the court, at le^ast three days before the day 
 appointed for hearing the application, his 
 report as to the conduct and affairs of the 
 bankrupt or assignor (including a report 
 as to the conduct of the bankrupt or assignor 
 during the proceedings under his bank- 
 ruptcy or assignment). If the bankrupt or 
 assignor has been examined, the trustee 
 shall also file such examination, and shall 
 report to the court any fact, matter or cir- 
 cumstance which would, under this Act, 
 justify the court in refusing an uncondi- 
 tional order of discharge. 
 
 (4) On the hearing of the application the court 
 shall take into consideration the report of the 
 trustee, and may either grant or refuse an 
 absolute order of discharge or suspend the . 
 operation of the order for a specified time, 
 or grant an order of discharge subject to 
 any conditions with respect to any earnings 
 or income which may afterwards become 
 due to the bankrupt or authorized assignor 
 or with respect to his after-acquired pro- 
 perty. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 517 
 
 (5) The court shall refuse the discharge in all section 58 
 cases where the bankrupt or authorized p 0W ers of 
 assignor has committed any offence under ™^[* e t0 
 this Act or any offence connected with his suspend or 
 bankruptcy or assignment or the proceed- fonditionai 
 ings thereunder, unless for special reasons dlschai = e - 
 the court otherwise determines, and shall 
 on proof of any of the facts mentioned in 
 the next succeeding section, either, — 
 
 (a) refuse the discharge ; or, 
 
 (b) suspend the discharge for a period of 
 not less than two years : provided, that the 
 period may be less than two years if the 
 only fact proved of those hereinafter 
 mentioned is that his assets are not of a 
 value equal to fifty cents in the dollar on 
 the amount of his unsecured liabilities; 
 or, 
 
 (c) suspend the discharge until a dividend 
 of not less than fifty cents in the dollar 
 has been paid to the creditors ; or, 
 
 (d) require the bankrupt or assignor, as a 
 condition of his discharge, to consent to 
 judgment being entered against him by 
 the trustee for any balance or part of any 
 balance of the debts provable under the 
 bankruptcy or assignment which is not 
 satisfied at the date of the discharge, such 
 balance or part of any balance of the 
 debts to be paid out of the future earnings 
 or after-acquired property of the bank- 
 rupt or assignor in such manner and sub- 
 ject to such conditions as the court may 
 direct; but execution shall not be issued 
 on the judgment without leave of the 
 court, which leave may be given on proof 
 
 . that the bankrupt or assignor has, since 
 his discharge, acquired property or in- 
 come available towards payment of his 
 debts. 
 
 Provided that, if at any time after the expira- 
 
518 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 58 
 
 tion of one year from the date of any order 
 made under this section the bankrupt or 
 assignor satisfies the court that there is no. 
 reasonable probability of his being in a posi- 
 tion to comply with the terms of such order 
 the court may modify the terms of the order, 
 or of any substituted order, in such manner 
 and upon such conditions as it may think 
 fit. 
 
 Cross References Act: Effect of discharge, 61, 60(3) ; facts on 
 which discharge may be refused, suspended or granted conditionally. 
 59, 60(1) (7) ; proceedings on application for discharge, 60(2) to 
 60(6) ; annulment of adjudication, 62; bankruptcy offences, 89-96, and 
 see sections 54 to 56 ; registrar may grant orders of discharge where 
 unopposed, 62(2) (c) ; discharge defined, 2(p) ; powers of suspending 
 and attaching conditions to discharge may be exercised concurrently, 
 60(6). 
 
 Cross References Rules: 135-144; opposed applications, 135(1). 
 
 Cross References Forms : Application for order of discharge, 66 ; 
 notice to trustee of application for discharge, 67 ; notice to creditors of 
 application for discharge, 68 ; order granting discharge unconditionally. 
 69; order refusing discharge, 70; order suspending discharge, 71; order 
 of discharge where only facts proved that assets not equal to 50 cents 
 on the dollar, 72 ; order of discharge subject to earnings, etc., 73 ; order 
 of discharge subject to a condition requiring the bankrupt to consent to 
 judgment being entered up against him, 74 ; consent of bankrupt to 
 judgment being entered for balance or part of balance of provable debts, 
 75 ; judgment to be entered pursuant to concent, 76 ; affidavit by debtor as 
 to after-acquired property, etc., 77 ; notice of discharge of bankrupt, 81. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: Canadian Acts, 1875, ss. 64, 65, 66; 
 1869, ss. 105, 108 ; English Act, 1914, s. 26 (1) (7) (2) ; English Rule 
 227. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Application for discharge. 
 
 Discretion under 58(4)'(5) is a judicial discretion. 
 Discharge to be refused where bankrupt has committed an offence, 
 etc. 
 
 Unless " special reasons " exist. 
 Court may consider facts which are not offences and not mentioned 
 
 in section 59. 
 Rules to be followed where proof made of facts mentioned in 
 
 section 59. 
 Suspension under 59(5) (c). 
 Discharge subject to consent (to judgment. 
 Application for modification of terms of order. 
 Appeals. 
 
 Application A bankrupt who has applied for his discharge may 
 
 discharge, be given leave to withdraw his application 9 . Delay in 
 
 applying for a discharge will not justify a refusal 
 
 "In re Wallis, ex parte Board of Trade (1891), 60 L. J. Q. B. 
 455 ; 8 Mor. 110. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 519 
 
 where there is no suggestion that the bankrupt was Sectioass 
 waiting until lapse of time had blotted out some evi- 
 dence against him 10 . 
 
 The discretion exercised by the court under section Discretion 
 58(4) (5) is a judicial discretion. Therefore where ailing) ; s 
 the facts have been brought to the attention of the a jumcnd 
 court which has correctly 1 exercised its discretion 2 as 
 to the terms on which a bankrupt is to obtain his dis- 
 charge, suoh decision will not be interfered with on the 
 allegation, e.g., that the punishment was too lenient 3 or 
 severe 4 unless it is clear that the decision was wrong 5 . 
 If it is clear that the court has come to a wrong conclu- 
 sion of fact with regard to the debtor's conduct , or 
 that the decision of the court was founded solely on 
 the report of the trustee, the statements in which turn 
 out to he unfounded or capable of explanation 7 , the 
 order may be varied 8 . 
 
 Section 58(5) provides that the court shall refuse Discharge- to 
 the discharge in all cases where the bankrupt or auth- ^eretank- 
 orized assignor has committed 9 an offence under therupthas 
 Act 10 , or any offence connected with his bankruptcy, or^^ce, etc!" 1 
 assignment, or the proceedings thereunder 1 . It may 
 be that the words "or any offence connected with his 
 bankruptcy" include only offences which are ejusdem 
 generis with "offences under the Act" 2 . It has been 
 
 10 In re Pearse (1913), 107 L. T. 859. ' 
 
 % In re and ex parte Rankin (1887), 5 Mor. 23; In-re and ex parte 
 Shackleton (1889), 6 Mor. 304. 
 
 2 In re Shields (1912), 106 L. T. 345; In re Richards ex parte 
 Evans (1893), 10 Mor. 136. 
 
 3 In re Richards ex parte Evans (1893), 10 Mor. 136. 
 * In re and ex parte Swabey (1897) , 76 L. T. 534. 
 'In re Chase ex parte Cooper '(1 Q 86), 3 Mor. 228. 
 
 'Ex parte Castle Mail Packet Co. in re Payne (1886), 18 Q.-B. D. 
 154; 3 Mor. 270; In re and ex parte Nicholas (1890), 7 Mor. 54. 
 
 'Ire re and ex parte Sultzoerger (1887), 4 Mor. 82; Re Oswell ex 
 parte Board of Trade (1892), 9 Mor. 202. 
 
 "See further In re and ex parte Freeman (1890), 7 Mor. 38. 
 
 'See as to the meaning of " has committed." under the English Act 
 of 1890; In re Wood ex parte Leslie & Co., Ltd. (1915), 1 H. B. R. 53. 
 
 "Bankruptcy offences are defined in sections 89 to 96. 
 
 1 See sections 54 to 56. 
 
 ' Re Bedley ex parte Board of Trade (1895), 1 Q. B. 923; 64 B. J 
 
 Q. B. 460; 2 Mans. 186. The phrase in The Insolvent Act at 1869 was 
 
 or otherwise in &nW way contravened! the provisions of this Act " ■ 
 
 Hood v. Dodds (1873), 19 Gr. 639. A registrar was held justified in 
 
 suspending a discharge where the trustee had entered into an improper 
 
520 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY .ACT. 
 
 Section 58 
 
 : 3tL 
 
 Unless 
 " special 
 reasons " 
 exist. 
 
 said under the English section, which is not in all 
 respects the same as 58(5), that there would be an 
 offence connected with the bankruptcy if there were a 
 conviction on facts which resulted in or brought about 
 the debtor's insolvency; or if the facts' upon which the 
 conviction was based consisted in misconduct by the 
 debtor either as a bankrupt, or in view of an impend- 
 ing bankruptcy 3 . Where a person has embezzled money 
 from his employer and subsequently becomes bank- 
 rupt, and the employer proves in the bankruptcy, the 
 embezzlement is not an offence connected with the 
 bankruptcy merely by reason of the proof made by the 
 employer 4 . 
 
 Even though the debtor has committed an offence 
 under the Act, the court may grant him his discharge 
 where "special reasons" exist. But where there are 
 ' ' special reasons ' ' it does not follow that the bankrupt 
 is entitled to an immediate discharge without any 
 period of probation 5 . If there are "special reasons" 
 on which the court acts they must be stated in the 
 order 6 . The facts that the debtor had been imprisoned 
 for his offences and that these were the result more of 
 confusion and distress than of deliberate fraudulent 
 intent were held not to be "special reasons" 7 . As to 
 whether good conduct of a bankrupt, after his dis- 
 charge has been refused, is a special reason sufficient 
 to support a renewal of his application, qucere*. 
 
 In considering the question of a bankrupt's dis- 
 charge, the court should have regard not only to the 
 interests of the bankrupt and his creditors, but also to 
 
 arrangement with the debtor, and where the debtor was a party to the 
 purchase of debts from the creditors under circumstances which showed 
 that the creditors had not been placed upon an equal footing: In re Shaw 
 (1917), 2 K. B. 734; 86 L. J. K. B. 1395. 
 
 8 In re Hedley ex •parte Board of Trade, supra. 
 
 *S. C. 
 
 n In re Solomons (1904), 1 K. B. 106; 73 L. J. K. B. 55 ; 10 Mans. 
 
 SC0 - 
 
 "In re Stevens ex parte Board of Trade (1898), 2 Q. B. 495; 67 
 
 L. J. Q. B. 932; 5 Mans. 222; In re and ex parte Nicholas (1890), 7 
 
 Mor. 54. 
 
 * In re Stevens ex parte Board of Trade, supra. 
 
 'In re and ex parte Smith (1919), 88 L. J. K. B. 113; In »'« 
 Solomons (1904), 1 K. B. 106; 73 L. J. K. B. 55; 10 Mans. 369; i» 
 re Shields (1912), 106 L. T. 345. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 521 
 
 the interests of the public and of commercial morality Section 58 
 and may take into consideration conduct of the debtor c^rt may 
 and facts other than those set out in section 59, and insider 
 those on proof of which the discharge must be refused 10 , which are not 
 provided they are in some way connected with the bank- not men- an 
 ruptcy 1 . It is no ground on which to refuse or suspend gectfon^) 
 the bankrupt's discharge that the bankrupt has refused 
 to submit to a medical examination, which had been 
 requested by the trustee, with a view to a policy being 
 effected on his life 2 . Where the bankrupt is a solicitor, 
 the court ought to be very careful in granting him his 
 discharge 3 . It seems in England that where a debtor 
 has only one unsecured creditor and files his own peti- 
 tion, the court will not consider this an act of miscon- 
 duct which should be taken into consideration on an 
 application for discharge, at least when both petition 
 and adjudication were unchallenged 1 . "While there 
 appears to be nothing in the act to prevent an assign- 
 ment by a person with no assets 5 , still if the assign- 
 ment amounts to a fraudulent attempt by a person 
 with no assets to accomplish his release by the assist- 
 ance of an act of parliament, it may be that the court 
 will take this fact into consideration when dealing with 
 the application for a discharge 6 . 
 
 'In re and ex parte Badcock (1886), 3 Mor. 138. 
 
 10 In re and ex parte Cook (1889), 6 Mor. 224; In re Barker ex 
 parte Constable in re Jones (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 285; 59 L. J. Q. B. 
 331; 7 Mor. Ill; In re and ex parte Badcock (1886), 3 Mor. 138; 
 In re Shields (1912), 106 L. T. 345. 
 
 *7n re Barker ex parte Constable in re Jones (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 
 285 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 331 ; 7 Mor. Ill ; In re Brocklebank ex parte Dunn & 
 Raeburn (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 461; 58 L. J. Q. B. 375; 6 Mor. 138. 
 
 'Board of Trade v. Block (1888), 13 A. C. 570; 58 L. J. Q. B. 113. 
 
 3 In re Dalaell (-1909) , 16 Mans. 203. 
 
 *In re Bullen ex parte Arnaud (1888), 5 Mor. 243., 
 iBAa The ? oliey of the older bankruptcy "Acts was explicit. The Act of 
 1849 required the petitioner to state "Your petitioner verily believes 
 that he can make it appear to the satisfaction of the court that his 
 available estate is sufficient to pay his creditors at i least 5s. in the 
 pound," and the Act of 1854 contained the proviso " provided the debtor 
 make it appear to the satisfaction of the court that his available estate 
 is sufficient to produce the sum of £150 at the least." See In re 
 leumark (1862), 6 L. T. N. S. 755 ; In re Thomas (1868) , 15 Gr! 196 ; 
 In re Perry (1866), 2 U. C. L. J. N. S. 75. 
 
 'Ex parte Morrison in re Clunn (1864), 10 Jur. N. S. 787 ; Thomas 
 v. Ball (187-4), 6 P. R. 172; Parke v Day (1875), 24 iU. O.'C. P. 619. 
 An assignment under The Insolvent Act of 11875 passed not only what 
 real and personal estate the insolvent then 'had, but also whatever 
 
522 
 
 the! bankruptcy act. 
 
 Section 58 
 
 mentioned in 
 section 59, 
 
 Suspension 
 under 
 59(5) (c). 
 
 Where proof is made of any of the facts mentioned 
 i tn ir* to he i* 1 section 59 (other than those in 59(a)), the court 
 where moof eann °t grant an unconditional discharge 7 or suspend 
 madeof facta the discharge for any period less than the minimum of 
 two years 8 . An order suspending a discharge may 
 not incorporate both the conditions set out in 58(5) 
 (fe) (c) 9 . But it seems an order may be made refusing 
 the discharge with liberty to apply for an immediate 
 discharge on satisfying the court that in addition to 
 the 10 shillings in the pound already paid, a further 
 sum of 1 shilling in the pound has been paid 10 . Where 
 the only facts proved are those mentioned in section 
 59, a bankrupt's discharge should only be refused in 
 exceptional cases 1 , and suspension for five years should 
 be reserved for very bad cases 2 , but suspension for 
 three or six months is not as a general rule a suffici-. 
 ently serious punishment 3 . 
 
 An order may not be made suspending a discharge 
 until a dividend of 50 cents on the dollar has been 
 paid to certain of the creditors 4 . Where an order of 
 discharge was improperly conditioned on the payment 
 of a dividend of 5 shillings in the pound instead of 10. 
 shillings, but was acted on for five years, it was held 
 that it must be treated as valid; but that a legacy 
 which had become payable to the bankrupt and was 
 
 should in any way come to or devolve upon him before obtaining jhis 
 discharge. The Bankruptcy Act is deficient in this last provision in the 
 case of an assignment : .see section 25. 
 
 7 In re Heap (1887), '4 Mor. 314. 
 
 "In re Oswell ex parte Board of Trade (1892), 9 Mor. 202; under 
 the Act of 1883 the.-e was no minimum ; In re and ex parte Sultzberger 
 (1887), 4 Mor. 82. 
 
 9 In re Wahnsley (1908) , 15 Mans. 342, when the order had been that 
 the discharge should be suspended for three years and further payment 
 of 10 shillings in the pound, but see Be Dallmeyer (1906), I/. T. N. 543; 
 (1906), L. J. N. O. 245, and compare In re and ex parte TregasHs 
 (1889), 6 Mor. 309. 
 
 10 In re and ex parte Tregaskis (1890), 7 Mor. 193. 
 
 1 In re Pearse (1913), 107 L. T. 859. Where it is evident that a 
 bankrupt's knowledge of bookkeeping for example is such that he cannot 
 properly inform himself of his position the court may instead of sus- 
 pending the discharge, refuse it with liberty to the bankrupt to apply 
 again at some future time and show that he has acquired the knowledge 
 of which he was before deficient: In re and ex parte\Freeman (1890), 
 7 Mor. 38, and see In re and ex parte Tregaskis (1890) , 7 Mor. 193. 
 
 2 In re and ex parte Swdbey (1897), 76 L. T. 534. 
 
 3 In re and ex parte Freeman (1890), 7 Mor. 38. 
 * See In re Came ex parte Jackson (1889), 6 Mor. 55. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 523 
 
 more than sufficient to pay the dividend of 5 shillings section 58 
 vested in the trustee. In that case it was held that the — 
 bankrupt was entitled to his discharge, but that the 
 whole of the legacy was divisible among his creditors 6 . 
 Where a bankrupt 's discharge is opposed on the ground 
 that the assets are not of sufficient value to pay a divi- 
 dend of fifty cents on the dollar, the burden is on the 
 opposing creditors to prove the insufficiency of the 
 assets 6 . 
 
 The condition in 58(5) (d) is not merely a condition Discharge 
 that the debtor shall consent to judgment; it is also a^j^j.^ 
 condition that he shall perform the conditions im- judgment, 
 posed on him by the court as to payment. If there- 
 fore the court is satisfied that the debtor has been in 
 receipt of earnings or after-acquired property and has 
 not devoted them to the purpose to which they ought 
 to he applied, it may revoke the discharge under sec- 
 tion 74 7 . Where a bankrupt refuses to give the con- 
 sent required by 58(5) (d), the court may not on an 
 application to have the order revoked, repeat its 
 former order and refuse to make any further order, 
 thus in effect suspending the discharge until the bank- 
 rupt consents to the condition 3 . Under 58(5) (d), the 
 court is neither bound to enter judgment for the whole 
 amount of the balance nor even for a sum sufficient to 
 pay fifty cents on the dollar 9 . The "part of any bal- 
 ance" referred to in 58(5) (d) allows the exclusion of 
 apart of the liability but not of some of the creditors 10 . 
 Under the Act of 1883-which did not contain the words 
 "such balance or any part of any balance of the debts 
 to be paid out of the future earnings or after-acquired 
 property of the bankrupt", it was held that the court 
 should only act under 58(5) (d) where there is a pro- 
 bability that the bankrupt may become possessed of 
 
 'In re Hawkins ex parte O R. (1892), 1 Q. B. 890 ■ 61 L. J. Q. B. 
 4a8 ; 9 Mor. 118. 
 
 „ '? ee In re Van Laua er P arte The International Assets Co., Ltd. 
 (1908), 14 Mans. 281. 
 
 ™, '/" re Summers ex parte O. R. (3907), 2 K. B. 166 ; 76 L. J K. B. 
 '07 ; 14 Mans. 101. 
 
 ^ 'In re Gaskell (1904), 2 K. B. 478; 73 L. J. K. B. 656 ; 11 Mans. - 
 
 °Jn re Richards ese parte Evans (1893), 10 Mor. 136. 
 S. C. 
 
524 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 58 after-acquired property 1 . It was decided under The 
 "" ~ Bankruptcy Act of 1883 that provisions similar to 
 those contained in 58(5) (d) could not be incorporated 
 in a scheme of arrangement, nor could the parties by 
 consent give the court this jurisdiction which it did not 
 otherwise possess 2 . 
 Application An application made under the proviso at the end 
 tionTfterms of section 58 should be made by the bankrupt or 
 of order. assignor himself and not by the trustee. The fact that 
 the bankrupt has not complied with rule 142' is no bar 
 to his application 3 . It seems that in cases in which the 
 conduct' of the debtor has been creditable to him he 
 will not be kept for an indefinite time subject to a con- 
 ditional order of discharge, e.g., to pay over any sur- 
 plus of income to the trustee*. 
 Appeals. Under section 74(2) (d) any person dissatisfied with 
 
 the grant or refusal to grant a discharge may appeal' 
 from the order 5 where the aggregate of the unpaid 
 claims of the creditors exceed five hundred dollars'. 
 Where a bankrupt has appealed from a refusal to hear 
 his application for discharge the appeal court will in a 
 proper case hear and dispose of the application 7 . The 
 court has jurisdiction on an appeal to order an undis- 
 charged bankrupt to pay costs 8 . It was held under the 
 Act of 1883 that creditors who had been served with 
 notice of an appeal by a bankrupt from an order grant- 
 ing him a conditional discharge would not be allowed 
 their costs of appearing on the appeal when the official 
 receiver or trustee appeared 9 . 
 
 1 In re Bullen ex parte Amaud (1888), 5 Mor. 243; In re and ex 
 parte Jones (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 589; In re and ex parte Gould (1890), 
 63 L. T. 292 ; In re and ex parte Gould (1890) . 7 Mor. 215 ; see further 
 under the Act of 1883 In re and ex parte James. (1891), 8 Mor. 19; 
 In re and ex parte Shaelcleton (1889), 6 Mor. 304. 
 
 2 In re Aylmer ex parte Bischoffsheim (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 258; 57 
 L. J. Q. B. 168. 
 
 8 In re Rooerts & Co., ex parte Bonzoline Manufacturing Co. (1904), 
 2 K. B. 299 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 724 ; 11 Mans. 134. 
 
 l In re Durnford (1895), 2 Mane. 521. In this case the uncondi- 
 tional discharge was granted ten years after the date of the first order. 
 
 5 See where no formal order had been drawn up: In re Jones (1868), 
 4 TJ. C. P. R. 317. 
 
 See Exi parte Castle Mail Paclets Co. in re Payne (1886) , 18 V,. 
 B. D. 154. 
 
 ' In re Jones, supra 
 
 8 Ex parte Castle Mail Packets Go. in re Payne, supra. 
 
 "Ex parte Salaman (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 936; 54 L. J. Q. B. 23b; 
 2 Mor. 61. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 325 
 
 59. The facts referred to in the next preceding section 59 
 
 Section are, Facts on 
 
 (a) that the assets of the bankrupt or^^ rge 
 assignor _are not of a value equal to fifty ™|-^ 
 cents in the dollar on the amount of his suspended or 
 unsecured liabilities, unless he satisfies fonditiL- 
 the court that the fact that the assets are al] y- 
 not of a. value equal to fifty cents in the 
 dollar on the amount of his unsecured 
 liabilities has arisen from circumstances 
 for which he cannot justly be held respon- 
 sible ; 
 
 (fe) that the bankrupt or assignor has 
 omitted to keep such books of account as 
 are usual and proper in the business 
 carried on by him and as sufficiently dis- 
 close his business transactions and finan- 
 cial position within the three years imme- 
 diately preceding his bankruptcy or the 
 making of the assignment; 
 
 (c) that the bankrupt or assignor has con- 
 tinued to trade after knowing himself to 
 be insolvent ; 
 
 (d) that the bankrupt or assignor has failed 
 to account satisfactorily for any loss of 
 assets or for any deficiency of assets to 
 meet his liabilities ; 
 
 (e) that the bankrupt or assignor has 
 brought on, or contributed to, his bank- 
 ruptcy or assignment by rash and hazard- 
 ous speculations, or by Unjustifiable ex- 
 travagance in living, or by gambling, or 
 by culpable neglect of his business affairs ; 
 
 (/) that the bankrupt or assignor has put 
 any of his creditors to unnecessary ex- 
 pense by a frivolous or vexatious defence 
 to any action properly brought against 
 him; 
 
 (g) that the bankrupt or assignor has, 
 within three months preceding the date 
 of the receiving order or assignment, in- 
 
526 
 
 THE' BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 59 
 
 curred unjustifiable expense by bringing 
 a frivolous or vexatious action; 
 
 (h) that the bankrupt or assignor has, 
 within three months preceding the date 
 of the receiving order or of the making 
 of the assignment, when unable to pay his 
 debts as they became due, given an undue 
 preference to any of his creditors ; 
 
 (i) that the bankrupt or assignor has, 
 within three months preceding the date 
 ■of the receiving order or of the making 
 of the assignment, incurred liabilities' 
 with a view of making his assets equal to 
 fifty cents in the dollar on the amount of 
 his unsecured liabilities ; 
 
 (j) that the bankrupt or assignor has, on 
 any previous occasion, been adjudged 
 bankrupt or has made an authorized 
 assignment Or made a composition, exten- 
 sion or arrangement with his creditors; 
 
 (k) that the bankrupt or assignor has been 
 guilty of any fraud or fraudulent breach 
 of trust. 
 
 Cross References Act: When assets are deemed equal" to fittj 
 cents on the dollar, 60(1) ; bankrupt failing to keep proper books of 
 account, 91(1) (2). 
 
 Analogous Legislation : English Act, 1014, s. 26(3). 
 
 Court may 
 
 consider 
 
 facts 
 
 occurring 
 
 before Act 
 
 came into 
 
 force. 
 
 Analysis op Notes. 
 
 Court may consider facts occurring before the Act come into force. 
 
 Burden of proof. 
 
 Assets not equal to fifty cents on the dollar. 
 
 Books of account. 
 
 Continuing to trade. 
 
 Rash and hazardous speculation. 
 
 Unjustifiable extravagance in living. 
 
 Vexatious defence. 
 
 Undue preference. 
 
 When the court takes into consideration any of the 
 facts set out in section 59, it is not limited to facts which 
 have occurred subsequently to the coming into opera- 
 tion of The Bcmkrwptcy Act, but may consider those 
 which have taken place before that date 10 . 
 
 10 In re and ex parte Rogers (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 438; 1 Mor.159; 
 In re and ex parte Salaman (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 936; 54 L. J. Q- *■ 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 52 ] 
 
 The burden of proving that the assets are not of a section 59 
 value equal to fifty cents on the dollar is on the oppos- Burden of 
 ing creditors 1 ; as is that of proving either that there P roof - 
 were no hooks of account or that they were defective in 
 some respect 2 . 
 
 Section 61(1) provides that in certain circum- Assets not 
 stances the assets of the bankrupt or assignor shall be tttyl^ts 
 deemed of a value equal to fifty cents on the dollar on on th e dollar, 
 the amount of his unsecured liabilities 3 . 
 
 The hooks which are required to be kept are books Books of 
 with respect to the business which the debtor carries account - 
 on: not with respect to a speculation, not amounting to 
 a business 4 into which he enters 5 . Where the business 
 is one in which it is not usual to keep books none need 
 be kept 6 . The books must be properly kept and bal- 
 anced from time to time' and should show at once with- 
 out the necessity of a prolonged investigation by a 
 skilled accountant the state of the debtor's business 8 . 
 The expression "financial position" does not mean a 
 man's "financial position aliunde", but his "financial 
 position with regard to the business which is carried 
 on by him" 9 . Under sections 56 and 57 of The Insol- 
 vent Act of 1875 the court was compelled to refuse a 
 discharge if the debtor had failed to keep a cash book 
 
 238 ; 2 Mor. 61 ; Ex parte Durnford (1851) , 4 DeG. & S. 29 ; 29 L. J. B. 
 27; Ex parte Staner, 2 D. M. & G. 263, 267, contrast In l-e White 
 (1863), 9 L. T.N. S. 702. 
 
 1 In re Van Laun ex> parte The International Assets Co., Ltd. 
 (1908), 14 Mans. 281. 
 
 'In re Russell (1882), 7 O. A. K. 777. 
 
 'And see In re Galbraith v. Christie (1880), 5 O. A. R. 358, as to 
 circumstances for which the debtor cannot be held responsible. 
 
 'In re Griffin ex parte Board of Trade (1890), 60 L. J. Q. B. 235; 
 8 Mor. 1, but if it does amount to a business books must be kept : In re 
 and ex parte Carter (1850), 1 Fonb. 83. 
 
 B In re Mutton ex parte Board of Trade (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 102; 
 56 L. J. Q. B. 395 ; 4 Mor. 180. 
 
 •S. C. 
 
 ' In re Smart (1849), 1 Fonb. 14. 
 
 'Ex parte Reed & Bowen (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 244; 55 L. J. Q. 
 B. 244; 3 Mor. 90; see under the Act of 1875 In re Bill (1882), 7 
 0. A. R. 694, 701. See as to account book In re Sullivan (1869), 5. C. 
 L. J. 71; ledger, In re Tracey (1849), 1 Fonb. 13; cash book, In re 
 Sparrow (1850), 1 Fonb. 69, and see generally In re Seap and ex parte 
 Board of Trade (1887), 4 Mor. 314; In re and ex parte Freeman 
 (1890), 7 Mor. 38, 48. 
 
 Per Lopes, L.J., In re Mutton ex parte Board of Trade, supra, 
 at p. 109. 
 
528 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 59 
 
 Continuing 
 to trade. 
 
 Hash and 
 hazardous 
 speculation. 
 
 and accounts suitable for his trade ; though, where he 
 "had kept books, but had been negligent in keeping 
 them, the court might suspend his discharge. 10 
 
 While a man has a right to go on with a business 
 although it may be a losing business, on the other hand 
 when he becomes insolvent he may not go on trading in 
 the hope that he will be able to retrieve his position 1 . 
 
 Although a definition of what was not a rash and 
 hazardous speculation within the Act of 1861 was 
 attempted by Westbury, L.J/, the courts have shown a 
 preference in .favour of deciding each case on its 
 special facts 3 . The term rash and hazardous specula- 
 tions is not confined to speculations in trade. It in- 
 cludes other speculations such as gambling and betting 
 and stock market transactions 4 , but the business of a 
 stockbroker is not itself a speculation within the sec- 
 tion 5 . Nor is it necessarily a fash and hazardous 
 speculation for a person to take up a business which 
 he does not understand 6 . It has, however, been held 
 in England that it is rash within the meaning of the 
 section for a solicitor whose business requires all his 
 attention to enter into a land speculation which might 
 land him in indefinite loss 7 . It may be rash and hazard- 
 ous speculation for a trader who is owed a large sum 
 to endeavour to keep his debtor afloat and continually 
 to increase the debt in his favour 8 . 
 
 10 In re Gooding (1880), 5 O. A. K. 643. As to the weight to be 
 given to the fact that the omission to keep books' was not due to any 
 fraudulent intent, see In re Bullivant (1880) , 5 O. A. K. 638. 
 
 l In re Stainton ex. parte Board, of Trade (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 182; 
 4 Mor. 242, compare In re Eolt (1867) , 13 Gr. 568. 
 
 3 In re and ex parte Downman (1863), 32 L. J. Bank. 49. 
 
 3 In re Keays (1891), 9 Mor. 18; In re and ex parte Young (1885). 
 2 Mor. 37. See as to a speculation in land and buildina;, In re and etc 
 parte Salaman (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 936; 54 L. J. Q. B. 238; 2 Mor. 
 61 ; In re Keays, supra; and the advancement of mon«y to a mining 
 company whose properties had not been developed, In re and er parte 
 Young, supra; all of which were held to be within the section. 
 
 'In re Barlow ex parte Thornier (1886), 3, Mor. 304; In re and 
 ex parte Rankin (1887), 5 Mor. 23; In re Stainton ex> parte [Board of 
 Trade (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 182; 4 Mor. 242; of. In re Jones (1868), 4 
 P. JR. 317. 
 
 "In re and ex parte Jenkins (1891), 8 Mor. 36; cf. In re Wilson 
 (1866), 14 L. T. 492. 
 
 "In re Nicholas (1890), 7 Mor. 54. 
 
 7 In re Keays (1891"), 9 Mor. 18; In re and ex parte Salaman 
 (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 936; 54 L. J. Q. B. 238; 2 Mor. 61. 
 
 s In re and ex parte Rogers (1884), 13 Q. B. D 438 ; 1 Mor. 159. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 529 
 
 When a man's earnings are no longer sufficient to section 60 
 support his usual style of living he will not be ex- unjustifiable 
 cused for not reducing his expenditure by the plea thatjj^^ 
 it was necessary to keep up appearances . living. 
 
 For cases illustrating what may constitute a vexa- vexatious 
 tious defence, see In re and ex parte Johnson 10 Be defence - 
 Pownall 1 and In re and ex parte Blackhurst 2 . 
 
 Undue preference in 59(h) has been interpreted to undue 
 mean an interference by the debtor in any way in order preference, 
 to give an advantage, or, possibly, what he thinks is an 
 advantage 3 to one of his creditors over the others 4 . 
 Consequently there may be an undue preference even 
 though the transaction does not amount to a fraudu- 
 lent preference under section 31 5 . 
 
 60 (1) For the purposes of the preceding sec- Assets of 
 tion the assets of a bankrupt or authorized deemfedlqtTai 
 assignor shall be deemed of a value equal to t0 ^ c . ents 
 fifty cents in the dollar on the amount of his ° 
 unsecured liabilities when the court is 
 satisfied that the property of the bankrupt 
 or assignor has realized, or is likely to 
 realize, or with due care in realization, 
 might have realized an amount equal to fifty 
 cents in the dollar on his unsecured liabili- 
 ties, and a report by the trustee shall be 
 prima facie evidence of the amount of such 
 liabilities. 
 
 (2) For the purposes of this and the next pre- Report of 
 ceding sections the report of the trustee £^® ocie 
 
 evidence 
 'In re Stainton ex parte Board of Trade,- supra; In re Stevens 
 (1863), 7 L. T. 649; In re and ex parte Sparham (1864), 9 L. T. 
 548; and see In re Barlow ex parte- Thornier, supra; In re and ex 
 parte Ryley (1866), 14 L. T. 707. 
 
 10 (1851), 4 DeG. & S. 25 ; 20 L. J. Bank. 6. 
 1 (1851), 1 Fonb. 221. 
 
 ! (1858), 3 DeG. & J. 39; 2T L. J. Bank. 24. 
 
 3 In re and ex parte Bryant (1895), 1 Q. B. 420 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 417 ; 
 2 Mans. 37. 
 . 'Per Esher, L.J., In re and ex parte Skegg, 63 L. T. 90; In re Jones 
 (1868), 4 P. R. 317. 
 
 Per Lindley, L.J., in In re and ex parte Skegg, supra; cf. In re 
 Russell (1882), 7 O. A. B. 777. 
 
 B.c—34 
 
530 
 Section 60 
 
 Court may 
 
 grant 
 
 certificate. 
 
 Examination 
 of debtor 
 may be read. 
 
 Counsel. 
 
 Power to 
 ■suspend. 
 
 Fraudulent 
 settlements. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 shall be prima facie evidence of the state- 
 ments therein contained. 
 
 (3) Any statutory disqualification on account 
 of bankruptcy shall cease if and when the 
 bankrupt obtains from the court his dis- 
 charge with a certificate to the effect that 
 the bankruptcy was caused by misfortune 
 without any misconduct on his part. The 
 court may, if it thinks fit, grant such a cer- 
 tificate, and a refusal to grant such a certifi- 
 cate shall be subject to appeal. 
 
 (4) At the hearing of the application, the court 
 may read the examination of the bankrupt 
 or assignor, and may put such further ques- 
 tions to him and receive such evidence as it 
 may think fit. 
 
 (5) The trustee, the debtor and any creditor 
 may attend and be heard in person or by 
 counsel. 
 
 (6) The powers of suspending and of attaching 
 conditions to the discharge of a bankrupt or 
 authorized assignor may be exercised con- 
 
 . currently. 
 
 (7) In. either of the following eases, that is to 
 say:— 
 
 (a) In the case of a settlement made before 
 and in consideration of marriage where 
 the settlor is not at the time of making the , 
 settlement able to pay alt his debts with- 
 out the aid of the property comprised in 
 the settlement; or, 
 
 (&) In the case of any covenant or contract 
 made in consideration of marriage for the 
 future settlement on or for the settlor's 
 wife or children of any money or property 
 wherein he had not at the date of his mar- 
 riage any estate or interest (not being 
 money or property of or in right of his 
 wife) ; 
 
 if the settlor is adjudged bankrupt or makes 
 
 an authorized assignment or compounds or 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 531 
 
 arranges with his creditors, and it appears section 60 
 to the court that such settlement, covenant - 
 or contract was made in order to defeat or 
 delay creditors, or was unjustifiable having 
 regard to the state of the settlor's affairs at 
 the time when it was made, the court may 
 refuse or suspend an order of discharge or 
 grant, an order subject to conditions, or re- 
 fuse to approve a composition or arrange- 
 ment, as the case may be, in like manner as 
 in cases where the debtor has been guilty of 
 fraud. 
 
 Cross References Act: Application for discharge, 58 ; facts on 
 which discharge may be refused, suspended or granted conditionally, 59 ; 
 examination of debtor, 56; avoidance of certain settlements and marriage 
 contracts, 29; appeals, 74(2) (d). 
 
 Cross References Rules: 135-144. Matters to be heard in 
 chambers, 4 ; and by motion, 14. 
 
 i Cross Reference Forms: Certificate x>f removal of disqualifica- 
 tion, 80. 
 
 . Analogous Legislation: English- Act, 1914, ss. 26(5) (6) (4) (7) 
 (8), '27. 
 
 There is a statutory disqualification in section 31 60(3) 
 of The British North America Act which' reads : — • disquaiffica- 
 
 "31. The place of a Senator shall become vacant in tions 
 any of the following cases : — 
 
 3. If he is adjudged bankrupt or insolvent, or 
 applies for the benefit of any law relating to insolvent 
 debtors, or becomes a public defaulter." 
 
 ' Section 60(6) of The Bankruptcy Act was passed s«e. 60(6). 
 to do away with the decision in In re Huggins*, which 
 held that the court had no power under the section cor- 
 responding with 58(4) to 'make an order of discharge 
 conditional and also to suspend its operation 7 . 
 
 It was held under The Insolvent Act 1875 that the Sec. 60(7). 
 fact that an insolvent had made a post-nuptial settle- 
 ment upon his wife at a-time when he was not aware 
 of his inability to meet his liabilities was no ground 
 for refusing his discharge 8 . ■ 
 
 • (1889); 22 Q.B. D. 277; 58" H J. Q. B. 207- 6 Mor. 38. 
 See for a case where the provisions of 60(6) were acted on: In 
 re and ev parte Dallmeyer (1906), 22 T. L. R. 445; and see notes to 
 section 58. 
 
 • f Jn re Russell (1882), 7 O. A. R. 777. 
 
532 
 
 Section 61 
 
 Debts not 
 released by 
 order of 
 discharge. 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Debts 
 released. 
 
 "Partner or 
 co-trustee 
 not released. 
 
 61 (1) An order of discharge shall not release 
 the bankrupt or authorized assignor, — 
 (a) from any debt on a recognizance nor 
 from any debt with which the bankrupt 
 or assignor may be chargeable at the suit 
 of the Crown or of any person for any 
 offence against a statute relating to any 
 branch of the public revenue, or at the 
 suit of the sheriff or other public officer 
 on a bail bond entered into for the ap- 
 pearance of any person prosecuted for 
 any such offence, and he shall not be dis- 
 charged from such excepted debts unless 
 an order in council proceeding from the 
 Crown in the proper right is filed in court 
 consenting to his being discharged there- 
 from; or, 
 (&) from any debt or liability incurred by 
 means of any fraud or fraudulent breach 
 of trust to which he was party, nor from 
 any debt or liability whereof he has 
 obtained forbearance by any fraud to 
 which he was a party ; or, 
 
 (c) from any liability under av judgment 
 against him in an action for seduction, or 
 under an affiliation order, or for alimony 
 or under a judgment against him as a 
 co-respondent in a matrimonial case, 
 except to such an extent and under such" 
 conditions as the court expressly orders 
 in respect of such liability; or, 
 
 (d) from any debt or liability for neces- 
 saries of life, and the court may make 
 such order for payment thereof as it 
 deems just or expedient. 
 
 (2) An order of discharge shall release the 
 bankrupt or assignor from all other debts 
 provable in bankruptcy or under an autho- 
 rized assignment. 
 
 (3) An order of discharge shall not release any 
 person who at the date of the receiving 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. jlj3 
 
 order or assignment was a partner or co- section 6i 
 trustee with the bankrupt or authorized 
 assignor or was jointly bound or had made 
 any joint contract with him, or any person 
 who was surety or in the nature of a surety 
 for him. 
 
 (4) An order of discharge shall be conclusive Evidence. 
 evidence of the bankruptcy, and of the vali- 
 dity of the proceedings therein, and in any 
 proceedings that may be instituted against 
 
 a bankrupt who has obtained an order of 
 discharge in respect of any debt from which 
 he is released by the order, the bankrupt 
 may plead that the cause of action occurred 
 before his discharge. 
 
 (5) Notice of the order of discharge of a bank- Notice of 
 rupt or authorized assignor shall be forth- d,schar s e - 
 with gazetted. 
 
 Cross References Act: Debts provable, 44 ; application for dis- 
 charge, 58 ; facts on which discharge may be refused, 59 ; procedure on 
 application, 60; statutory disqualification to cease, 60(3) ; annulment 
 of adjudication, 62; gazetted defined, 2(g); discharge defined, 2(p) ; 
 discharge in composition proceedings, 13(12) (19) ; alimentary debt 
 defined, 2(6) ; effect of a discharge in binding the Crown, 86; formal 
 defects, 84 ; sealed copy of order is receivable in all legal proceedings, 
 78; a discharge does not release from criminal liability, 94. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Rules relating to discharge, 135-144. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Notice of discharge of bankrupt, 81 ; 
 and_see Rules 66-80. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: Canadian Acts, 1875, ss. 61, 62, 63, 66 ; 
 1869, ss. 98, 99, 100, 108; English Acts, 1914, s. 28; 1883, s.30. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Differences between The Insolvent Acts and The Bankruptcy Act — 
 
 (a) Where claims not scheduled. 
 
 (6) Discharge now voidable not void. 
 Discharge conclusive evidence until set aside. 
 Debtor liable for balance of debt in certain cases. 
 Effect of discharge on license to seize or covenant to assure. 
 Discharge does not affect liability to criminal arrest. 
 Discharge ineffective unless trustee has assumed duties. 
 Foreign discharge. 
 
 Property received by debtor after discharge. 
 Cases within 61(1) (o). 
 Promise after discharge to pay barred debt. 
 Promise made during composition proceedings to pay debt in full. 
 
534 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section g\ Under The Insolvent Acts of 1864, 1869 and 1875 in 
 Differences order that the discharge might bar a creditor's claim, 
 insolvent 116 *^ e c ^ iai must in some way have been set out in the 
 Acts and schedule or supplementary list of creditors furnished 
 lyptwAct to the assignee 9 . The policy of The Bankruptcy Act 
 cUumlnot* ^ s different. Section 61 indicates the debts from which 
 •scheduled, the debtor shall not be released, and then provides that 
 the order shall discharge the debtor from "all other 
 debts provable in bankruptcy..' ' 
 (6) Under the Insolvent Acts of 1864 and 1875, it was 
 
 nov? vSIaWe provided that every discharge or composition or con- 
 not void. nrmation of any discharge or composition which had 
 been obtained by fraud "shall be null and void." 
 Under these Acts two lines of cases were developed 
 (1) those in which the fraud was specifically mentioned 
 in the Act and (2) those in which the. fraud was not so 
 mentioned. In the former it was held that the dis- 
 charge was void, the proceedings being wholly a nullity 
 and coram non judice. Accordingly the discharge 
 could be impeached when it was. set up as a defence to 
 an action by a creditor for his debt 10 . In the second 
 class of cases the discharge if voidable on application 
 to the Bankruptcy Court could not be attacked in a 
 suit at law 1 . 
 
 Discharge There is no provision in The Bankruptcy Act mak- 
 
 evfdence™ m g the discharge null and void. The order of dis- 
 aside. 86 ' charge is accordingly by section 61(4) conclusive evi- 
 
 • King v. Smith (1869), 19 U. 0. C. P. 319; Palmer v. Baker 
 (1871), 22 U. C. C. P. 59; Cameron v. Holland (1869), 29 U. C. Q. B. 
 506; Farrell v. O'Neill (1871), 22 U. O C. P. 31; Preston v. Bmton 
 (1875), 37 U. C. Q. B. 177 ; Robson v. Warren (1870), 6 C. L. J. N. S. 
 14. These cases are reviewed in Standard v. Johnson (1877), 24 U. C. 
 Q. B. 66. 
 
 10 Thompson v. Rutherford (1868), 27 TJ. 0. Q. B. 205 ; McMaster 
 v. King (1878), 3 O. A. R. 106; Godkin v. Beech (1876), 10 N. S. K. 
 261. Fraudulent concealment of assets was such a fraud: McLean v. 
 McLellan (1870), 29 U. C. Q. B. 548; McGee v. Campbell (1882), 2 0. 
 R. 130 ; Golloghy v. Graham (1872), 22 U. C. C. P. 226. As to priorities 
 between creditors when a discharge is set aside see Buchanan v. Smith 
 (1870) , 17 Gr. 208. 
 
 1 Parke v. Bay (1875), 24 U. C. C. P. 619; Forrester v. Thrasher 
 (1882), 2 O. R. 38, in effect overruling Thomas v. Hall (1874), 6 P. K. 
 172, on this point. See for a review of the policy under the old English 
 Bankruptcy laws: Groves v. McArdle (1873) 33 U. O. Q. B. 252. See 
 as to avoidance of discharge where no advertisement: Nicholson V. (hum 
 (1874), 35 U. C. Q. B. 7. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 535 
 
 dence in all other courts as well as in the Bankruptcy section 61 
 Court of the bankruptcy and of the validity of the ~ 
 proceedings therein. The course of any one complain- 
 ing against an order of discharge is to apply to the 
 Bankruptcy Court to set it aside. It cannot remain in 
 existence and be contested in an action to which it is set 
 up as a defence 2 . Apart from the effect given by the 
 statute to the order of discharge, the creditor or sur- 
 ety 3 may in some cases be estopped from claiming 
 against the debtor*. 
 
 An order of discharge releases a bankrupt or as- Debtor 
 signor from all debts provable in bankruptcy or under balanced 
 the authorized assignment except those set out in sec- debt in cer- 
 
 t '11 n P3.S6S 
 
 don 61(1). The result will be that as regards debts 
 which are mentioned in 61(1) and provable in the bank- 
 ruptcy, the debtor will after his discharge be liable 
 for the balance due on the debt. In cases to which the 
 discharge of the bankrupt is no defence, the court will 
 not restrain the creditor from proceeding to judgment 
 even during the pendency of the bankruptcy 5 , but the 
 judgment cannot be enforced during the bankruptcy 6 , 
 
 'Lewis v. Leonard (1880), 5 Ex. D. 165 ; 49 L. J. Ex. 308 ; Blmslie 
 v. Corrie (1878), 4 Q. B. D. 295; 48 L. J. Q. B. 462; Wadsworth v. 
 Pickles (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 470; 49 L J. Q. B. 454; section 127 of the 
 English Act of 1869, provided that " The registration by the registrar 
 of a special resolution of creditors on the occasion of a liquidation by 
 arrangement under Part Six of this Act, or of an extraordinary resolu- 
 tion of the creditors on the occasion of a composition under the Seventh 
 Part of this Act, shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive evidence 
 that such resolutions respectively were duly passed and all the requisi- 
 tions of this Act in respect of such resolutions complied with." It has 
 been held under this section that although the existence of fraud may be 
 yery good ground for an application to the court to place the parties 
 m statu quo, yet so long as the registration stands it will be an answer 
 to an action by any creditor under the liquidation ; and this although 
 the name of the plaintiff had been fraudulently omitted by the debtor 
 from the list of creditors delivered to the registrar: Wadsworth v. 
 Pickles (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 470; 49 L. J. Q. B. 454 ; cf. Heather v Well 
 (1876), 2 C. P. D 1 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 89. 
 
 'Martin v. Brumell <£- Richardson (1868). 4 P. R. 229; 4 XJ. C L. 
 J. N. S. 137. 
 
 * See MoLean v. McLellan (1870), 29 TJ. C. Q. B. 548; Fowler v. 
 Pen-in (1866) , 16 TJ. C. C. P. 258. 
 
 *Ex parte Coker in re Blake (1875), L. B. 10 Ch. 652; 44 L. J. 
 Bank. 126; Ex parte Hemming*in re Chatterton (1879), 13 Ch. T>. 163; 
 49 L. J. Bank. 17. 
 
 'Cobham v. Dalton (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 655; 44 L. J. Ch. 702; 
 Ross r. Gutteridge (1883), 52 L. J. Ch. 2S0 ; and see sections 6(1) 
 and 7. 
 
536 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 61 
 
 Effeqt of 
 discharge 
 on license to 
 seize or ' 
 covenant to 
 assure. 
 
 Discharge 
 does not 
 affect 
 liability to 
 criminal 
 arrest. 
 
 Discharge 
 ineffective 
 unless trus-) 
 tee has 
 assumed 
 duties. 
 
 Foreign 
 discharge. 
 
 although proof may be made for the amount of the debt, 
 where it is provable 7 , and dividends may be received. 
 Where the creditor receives dividends in the bank- 
 ruptcy in respect of the debt, the debtor will only 
 remain liable for the unpaid balance of the debt 8 . 
 
 Where a license to seize after-acquired goods is 
 given a creditor so that he may be able to satisfy his 
 debt, and thereafter the debtor becomes bankrupt and 
 obtains his discharge, the debt being gone the collateral 
 license to seize goes with it ; but where instead of a 
 mere license to seize there is a covenant, of which 
 specific performance would be ordered, to transfer or 
 charge after-acquired property, or anything amount- 
 ing to an equitable mortgage, the- result will be dif- 
 ferent 10 . 
 
 A debtor under arrest for non-payment of a sum of 
 money is not entitled to his release from arrest by 
 reason of the fact that he has obtained his discharge 
 in bankruptcy, if the arrest is in the nature of criminal 
 process. 1 
 
 It was held under The Insolvent Act of 1864 that 
 where there had been a voluntary assignment to an 
 official assignee who had refused to accept it, a dis- 
 charge obtained by the insolvent could have no effect 2 : 
 
 The effect which is given in English law to foreign 
 bankruptcies, using the word "foreign" in a restricted 
 sense, has recently been stated by Eve, J., 3 as follows : 
 
 7 Emma Silver Mining Co. v. Grant (1880) , 17 Ch. D. 122 ; 50 L. J. 
 Oh. 449 ; Bale v. Boustead (1881) , 8 Q. B. D. 453 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 255 ; 
 Jack v. Kipping (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 113; 51 L. J. Q. B. 463. 
 
 "Ex parte Hemming in re Chatterton (1879), 13 Ch. D. 163; 49 
 L. J. Bank. 17. 
 
 Thompson v. Cohen (1872) , L. R: 7 Q. B. 527, 533 ; 41 L. J. Q. B. 
 221. 
 
 10 In re Lind, Industrials Finance Syndicate v. Lind (1915), 1 H. B. 
 R. 204 ; Lyde v. Mynn (1833), 4 Sim. 505 ; 1 My. & K. 683 ; Holroyd v. 
 Marshall (1862), 10 II. L. C. 191; 33 L. J. Ch. 193. 
 
 1 Eon parte Graves in re Prince (1868) , L. R. 3 Ch. 642; Bancroft v. 
 Mitchell (1867), L .R. 2 Q. B. 549 ; 36 L. J. Q. B. 257; see as to judg- 
 ment summons: Copeman v. Rose (1857), 7 E.~& B. 679; Alley v. Dale 
 (1851), 11 C. B. 378; Ex parte Christie, 4 E. & B. 714; George V. 
 Somers (1855), 16 C. B. 539; MacKay v. Goodson (1868), 27 U. C. 
 Q. B. 263. 
 
 "Becker v. Blackburn, 23 U. C. C. P. 207, following Tarriiigton v. 
 Lyon (1866), 12 Gr. 308. 
 
 3 In In re Nelson, ex parte Dare and Dolphin (1918), 1 K. B. 459; 
 87 L. J. K. B. 628; (1918-19) B. & C. R. 1 (C.A.). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 53? 
 
 "Where the effect of the foreign bankruptcy is to Section 6i 
 divest the debtor of the whole of his property, wher- ~ 
 eyer situate, and to vest it in the assignee for distribu- 
 tion, amongst all his creditors, wherever resident, the 
 Courts in this country give the same effect to the order 
 or instrument discharging the debtors in the bank- 
 ruptcy as is given to it in the country where the bank- 
 ruptcy occurs 4 ." It follows that where there is no 
 compulsory divesting as in composition proceedings,' 
 or in winding up proceedings," an English debtor who 
 has not proved in composition or winding up proceed- 
 ings in another jurisdiction is not precluded by a wind- 
 ing-up order or by a certificate of conformity given 
 by the foreign court from pursuing his remedies in an 
 English Court 7 . Such certificate or order is, of course, 
 an answer in the court which gave it to an action in that 
 court on a judgment obtained, abroad*. What is, a dis- 
 charge of a debt in the country where it was contracted 
 and to be performed, is a discharge everywhere and 
 recognized as such by the comity of nations . 
 
 Even in cases not falling -within section 58(5) (d), Property 
 it does not necessarily follow that where a debtor has debtoYafter 
 obtained his discharge, property which comes to him discharge, 
 thereafter is his to dispose of. Where for example a 
 debtor during his bankruptcy, without the knowledge 
 of the trustee, effects an insurance on his life and pays 
 the premiums out of moneys allowed to him by the 
 
 * See In re Eades Estate, 33 D. L. R. 335, 348 ; Ferguson v Spencer 
 <1840), 10 L. J. C. P. 20; 1 Man. & G. 987; Armani v Castrique 
 (1844), 13 M. & W. 443, 447; 14 I/. J. Ex. 36, 38; Sidaway v Hay 
 (1824), 2 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 215; 3 B. & C. 12 ; Simpson v. Miravita 
 (or Mirabita) (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 287; 38 L. J. Q. B. 76; Phillips 
 v. Allen (1828), 8 B. & C. 477; Ellis v. McHenry, L. R. 6 C. P. 228; 
 40 L. J. C. P. 109. Distinguish Gibbs & Sons v. I La Societe, etc. den 
 Metauw (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 399 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 510 ; Bartley v. Hodges 
 (1861), 30 L. J. Q. B. 352 ; 1 B. & S. 375; Smith v. Buchanan (1800), 
 1 East. 6. " 
 
 5 in re Nelson, eaa parte Dare and Dolphin, supra. 
 
 ' Where the property remains vested in title and in fact in the com- 
 pany, subject to its being administered by the court : New Zealand Loan 
 and Mercantile Agency Co. v. Morrison (1898), A. C. 349, 358 ; 67 L. J. 
 P. CIO. 
 
 * In re Nelson, exi parte Dare and Dolphin, supra. 
 
 i Ellis v. McHenry (1871), 40 L. J. C. P. 109 ; B. R. 6 C. P. 228; 
 In re Nelson, ex parte Dare and Dolphin, supra. 
 
 'Potter v. Brown (1804), 5 East. 124; International Harvester Co. 
 v. Zarboh, 11 g. h. R. 354. 
 
538 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 61 trustee as salary and then obtains his discharge, the 
 official receiver in England is entitled to the policy 
 when it falls in 10 . The same principle applies where 
 the policy was effected before the liquidation, the 
 policy being concealed from the trustee 11 . Nor does it 
 make any difference that the discharged bankrupt con- 
 tinues to pay the policies after his discharge 12 . The 
 result would be different if the trustee is cognizant and 
 acquiesces in what is done 13 . 
 Oases within With reference to cases falling within section 61(1) 
 (b), it has been decided that where an attorney brings 
 an action without any authority from his client and is 
 ordered to pay the costs, his liability is one incurred 
 by means of a fraud from which a discharge will not 
 release him 1 . But where an action has been brought 
 with respect to a breach of trust and the defendant has 
 been ordered to pay the costs of the action, though 
 incurred as consequential upon the breach of trust 
 they are not a ' ' debt or liability incurred by means of 
 any fraudulent breach of trust". 2 A financial agent 
 who receives from the vendors of a mine a portion of 
 the purchase money without the knowledge of the com- 
 pany for which he is acting is guilty of a "fraud" and 
 also a "breach of trust". 3 The word "fraud" is not 
 confined to a fraud committed by the bankrupt per- 
 sonally. Therefore where a debt has been incurred by 
 one of several partners for which the partnership is 
 liable, and the partnership goes into liquidation and 
 an innocent partner receives his discharge, he is not 
 thereby released from the debt 4 . 
 Promise In England under the Acts of 1849 and 1861, no 
 
 chargeto pay action might be brought on either a verbal or written 
 barred debt, promise to pay a debt discharged by a certificate. 
 
 10 In re Stokes ex parte Mellish (1919), 2 K. B. 256. See notes to 
 section 25. 
 
 11 Tapster v. Ward (1909), 101 L. T. 25, 503. 
 
 12 In re Stokes ex parte Mellish, supra; Tapster v. Ward, supra. 
 "In re Tyler (1907), 1 K. B. 865 ; In re Hall (1907), 1 K. B. S75. 
 1 Jenkins v. Fereday (1871),. L. B. 7 C. P. 358. 
 
 'In re Greer, Napper v. Fanshawe (1895), 2 Oh. 217: 64 L. J. Ch- 
 620; 6 Mans.' 42., . 
 
 "Emma Silver Mining Co. v. Grant (1880), 17 Oh. D. 122; 50 L. J. 
 Ch. 449. 
 
 * Cooper v. Pritchard (1883) . 11 Q. B. D. 351 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 52b. 
 
THE, BANKRUPTCY ACT. 539 
 
 These provisions were repealed by the Act of 1869, section 62 
 and it was held under that Act that 6 a mere promise to 
 pay a debt barred by a certificate of discharge is nudum 
 pactum, being without consideration 6 . A different con- 
 elusion has been come to by the Court of Appeal in 
 Ontario on the provisions of The Insolvent Act of 
 1875 7 . A promise made after discharge to pay such a 
 debt is good if supported by a new and valuable con- 
 sideration 8 , or if there is a new contract wbich is 
 enforceable by the lex loci contractus 9 , provided there 
 is no fraud 10 . 
 
 Such a case must be distinguished from that aris- Promise 
 ing when a creditor who is a party to composition pro- ^mi^tion 
 ceedings and bound by them enters into an agreement 5J°* ed J n ff 
 with his debtor before his discharge for payment of in full, 
 his debt in full. Such an agreement, though made for 
 good consideration, is invalid as being a fraud on the 
 other creditors 1 . 
 
 62 (1) Where, in tihe opinion of the court, a Power of 
 
 debtor ought not to have been adjudged j^ 
 
 to 
 
 bankrupt, or where it is proved to the satis- adjudication. 
 faction of the court that the debts of the 
 bankrupt are paid in full, the court may, on 
 
 5 For history of the legislation see per Kelly, O.B., in Jakeman v. 
 Cook (1878) , 4 Ex. D. 26. These old provisions may be important in 
 certain of the provinces. 
 
 'Heather v. Well (1876), 2 C. P. D. 1 ; 46 L.J. C. P. 89 ; Jakeman 
 v. Cook (1878), 4 Ex. D. 26; 41 L. J. Ex. 165. 
 
 'Adams v. Woodland (1878), 3 O. A. R. 213, and see Austin v 
 Gordon (1872), 32 U. C. Q. B. 621, which was observed on in Samuel 
 v. Fairgrieve (1894), 21 O. A. R. 418, 425. No observation was made 
 on the decision in Adams v. Woodland, supra, although that case was 
 cited in argument in Samuel v. Fairgrieve. 
 
 'Jakeman v. Cook (1878), 4 Ex. D. 26; 41 L. J. Ex. 165; In re 
 Aylmer ex parte Crane (1894), 1 Mans. 391; In re Bonacina Le 
 Brasseur v. Bonacina (1912), 2 Ch. 394; 81 L. J. Ch. 674; 19 Mans. 
 224; Wild v. Tucker (1914), 3 K. B. 36; 83 L. J. K. B. 1410; 21 
 Mans. 181. 
 
 "As may be the case under Italian law by a mere promise to pay 
 and the execution of a privata scrittura, In re Bonacina Le Brasseur v. 
 Bonacinat, sup'ra. 
 
 "In re Gommersall ex parte Gordon (1875), 1 Ch. T>. 137; 45 L J 
 tsank. 1. 
 
 r% o^ parte Barrow in re Andrews (1881), 18 Ch. D. 464; 50 L. J 
 
 vT \i Wild v - Tucker (1914) , 3 K. B. 36; 83 L. J..K. B. 1410; 21 
 Mans. 181. 
 
540 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 62 
 
 Effect of 
 annulment. 
 
 Notice. 
 
 Filing bond 
 or payment 
 into court, 
 satisfaction 
 of debt. 
 
 the application of any person interested, by 
 order annul the adjudication. 
 
 (2) Where an adjudication is annulled under 
 this section, all sales and dispositions of 
 property and payments duly made, and all 
 acts theretofore done by the trustee, or other 
 person acting under his authority, or by the 
 court, shall be valid, but the property of the 
 debtor who was adjudged bankrupt shall 
 vest in such person as the court may ap- 
 point, or, in default of any such appoint- 
 ment, revert to the debtor for all his estate 
 or interest therein on such terms and subject 
 to such conditions, if any, as the court may 
 declare by order. 
 
 (3) Notice of the order annulling an adjudi- 
 cation shall be forthwith gazetted and pub- 
 lished in a local paper. 
 
 (4) For the purposes of this section any debt 
 disputed by a debtor shall be considered as 
 paid in full if the debtor enters into a bond, 
 in such sum and with such sureties as the 
 court approves, to pay the amount to be 
 recovered in any proceeding for the recovery 
 of or concerning the . debt, with costs, and 
 any debt due to a creditor who cannot be 
 found or cannot be identified shall be con- 
 sidered as paid in full if paid into court. 
 
 Cross References Act: Court may adjudge debtor bankrupt, 4(5) ; 
 application for discharge of debtor, 58 ; on approval of composition court 
 may annul bankruptcy or authorized assignment, 13(18) ; court may 
 review, rescind or vary any order, 74(1) ; gazetted defined, 2(g) ; local 
 newspaper defined, 2 (w). 
 
 Cross References Rules: Application to rescind receiving order 
 or annul adjudication, 96. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Order annulling adjudication, 78; 
 notice of order annulling adjudication, 79. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. 29. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Section 62 has no application to receiving order or authorized 
 
 assignment. 
 Cases when adjudication will be annulled. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 541 
 
 When a receiving order may be rescinded. Section 62 
 
 Effect of annulment on acts done by the trustee. 
 
 Effect of annulment generally. 
 When debts are paid in full. 
 
 Section 62 speaks only of the annulment of ansec.62has 
 adjudication, but this includes a jurisdiction to rescind £ a) ^ llca ~ 
 a receiving order 2 . The section has no reference to f£™» s 
 the case of an authorized assignment. It should be authorized 
 read with section 13(18), which provides for the assignment - 
 annulment of the bankruptcy or authorized assign- 
 ment where the court approves a composition exten- 
 sion or scheme. 
 
 In spite of what was said by Bacon, V.C., with cases when 
 respect to the inherent power of the court under the ^ U te Cation 
 Act of 1869 to annul an adjudication 3 , it has been said annulled, 
 that there is no inherent power in the court to annul 
 an adjudication under the Act of 1883, and that the 
 Court may annul an adjudication only in the two cases 
 mentioned in 62 (l) 4 , namely (1) where the debtor 
 ought not to have been adjudged bankrupt, and (2) 
 where the debts of the bankrupt have been paid in 
 full. It is clear, however, that the court has power to 
 prevent an abuse of its process 5 , and in a proper case 
 the court would no doxibt annul the adjudication. 
 But it has been held that the Court will not on the 
 ground that the "debtor ought not to have been ad- 
 judged bankrupt", annul an adjudication as an abuse 
 of the process of the court where the debtor presented . 
 his own petition in order that the adjudication should 
 relieve him from a debt and free an inalienable pen- 
 sion to which he was entitled from the possibility of 
 execution . 
 
 'Per Sterndale, M.R., In re a DeUor (No. 446 of 1918), (1920), 1 
 K. B. 461; (1920), B. & C. R. 31, 34. See as to the difference between 
 an adjudication of bankruptcy and the malting of a receiving order, notes 
 to section 4(5). 
 
 'Ex parte Ashworth in re Iloare, L. R. 18 Eq. 705; 43 L. J. Bank. 
 143. 
 
 'In re Gyll ex parte Board of Trade (1888), 5S L. J. Q. B. 8; 5 
 Mor. 272 ; In re Painter (1895) . 1 Q. B. 85 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 22 ; 1 Mans. 
 499; In re Hester (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 632, 633 ; 6 Mor. 85. 
 
 'In re Betts ex parte Official Receiver (1901), 2 K. B. 39: 70 L. J. 
 K. B. 511 ; 8 Mans. 227. 
 
 'In re Painter (1895), 1 Q. B. 85; 64 L. J. Q. B. 22 ; 1 Mans. 499 ; 
 In re Hancock ex parte Hillearys (1904), 1 K. B. 5S5 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 
 *lo ; 11 Mans. 1 ; contrast In re Belts ex parte Official Receiver (1901), 
 - K. B. 39 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 511 ; 8 Mans. 227. 
 
542 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 62 
 
 When a 
 receiving 
 order may 
 be rescinded. 
 
 The court lias a discretion to refuse to annul 
 the adjudication 7 even where the debts have been 
 paid in full ; and will it seems exercise that discretion 
 when the circumstances are such that a discharge would, 
 be refused 8 . It has been said that in the exercise of its 
 discretion under section. 13(18) the court ought to con- 
 sider not only the interest of the creditors, but also the 
 interest of the public and of commercial morality, and 
 may refuse to annul the bankruptcy or to approve the 
 scheme 9 - An adjudication not appealed from and duly 
 advertised will not be annulled on the ground that there 
 was no sufficient petitioning creditor's debt to support 
 the adjudication 10 . 
 
 Although the cases in which a receiving order may 
 be rescinded are not under The English Act necessar- 
 ily limited to those in which an adjudication may he 
 annulled 1 , it is convenient here to discuss the princi- 
 ples which have been laid down by the courts as guides 
 in such cases. When the registrar has made, a receiv- 
 ing order and there is no appeal 2 , he is functus officio 
 as regards the order; all that can then be done is to 
 apply to have it rescinded 3 . Under section 74(1) the 
 court has a general discretion to rescind a receiving 
 order 4 . But it must be exercised on proper principles 5 . 
 
 7 In re Keet ex parte O. R. (1905) , 21. B. 666 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 
 694 ; 12 Man. 235. ' 
 
 'In re and em parte Taylpr (1901), 1. K. B. 744; 70 L. J. K. B. 
 531 ; 8 Mans. 230 ; In re Keet ex parte 0. R. supra, In re Sullivan & 
 Hughes (1904), 20 T. L. R. 393. 
 
 'In re and ex parte Beer. (1903), 1 K. B. 628 V 72 L„ J. K. B. 366; 
 10 Mans. 136. 
 
 M Ex parte French in, re Trim (1883), 52 L. J. Oh. 48. 
 
 1 Ex parte O. R. in re Tzod (1898) , 1 Q. B. 241 ; 67 L. J. Q. B. Ill, 
 at 247, 248.. 
 
 - When on an appeal from the decision of the court in making the 
 receiving order it is not alleged that the o^der vms wrongly made, a 
 settlement having been made of the petitioning creditor's claim, the 
 Appeal Court will not rescind the order, but win dismiss the appeal, 
 leaving the way open for an application to be made to the registrar to 
 rescind the order if anything has happened since it was made which will 
 justify the court in rescinding it: In re and ex parte Nonis (1890), 7 
 Mor. 8. 
 
 'In re Flatau ex parte O. R. (1893), 2 Q. B. 2119.; 62 L. J. Q. B. 
 569 ; 10 Mor. 151. 
 
 .'In re Davidson (1894), W. N. 210; Ex parte 0. R. m re hod , 
 (1898), 1 Q. B. 241; 67 L. J.|Q. B. Ill; In.ra and ex parte Hester 
 (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 632 ; 6 Mor. 85. 
 
 "Ex. parte O. R. in re Izod, supra; In re and ex parte Hespr, supra- 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 543 
 
 In exercising its discretion, the court will have to con- Section 68 
 sider the rights not only of the debtor and of the 
 creditors, but also of .the public. 6 Similarly where an 
 application is made to the court under section 62(1) 
 to rescind a receiving order on the ground that the 
 debtor's debts have been paid in* full, the court has a 
 discretion in the matter, and may refuse to rescind 
 the order if of the opinion that further debts of the 
 debtor may be disclosed on his examination. 7 The 
 court may rescind a receiving order where an arrange- 
 ment has been made otherwise than in pursuance of 
 section 13 of the Act; but this will be done only with 
 great caution- 8 . A receiving order will not be rescinded 
 merely on the consent of the, petitioning creditor", and 
 the order will not be rescinded as a matter of course 
 merely because all the creditors consent to the rescis- 
 sion 10 , even where many of them have given the debtor 
 receipts in full for their debts 1 . Where a professional 
 bankrupt makes use of the bankruptcy law in assisting 
 him to commit frauds on his creditors, the receiving 
 order will be rescinded 2 . 
 
 Among the acts referred to by the words "all acts Effect of 
 theretofore done by the trustee . . . shall be valid" is o™"i m A>n 
 included the rejection of a proof by the trustee. Where t>y the 8 
 therefore a claim is made in the bankruptcy, which trustee ' 
 claim is rejected by the trustee, and no appeal from his 
 decision is prosecuted and the bankruptcy is annulled, 
 no step can be taken to enforce the claim, even though 
 it be a judgment 3 . But the trustee cannot by consent- 
 ing to the lumping of different securities in one valua^ 
 tion give a right to consolidation where none existed 
 before. 4 Where the trusteeTakes no steps to prevent 
 
 mo^l e ^t tor (No - 446 of 1918) (1920 >> 1 K - B - 461 - 467; 
 
 7 A ^ 3 ' In re and ex P arte Hester, supra; Be Flatau, ex 
 
 parte U. R„ supra. 
 
 'In re a Deltor (No. 446 of 1918), supra. 
 
 Carbarn), °5Mor n ^l l!10d ' "'' '" " ""* " ^ ^°" """ 
 °oi" re Flatm < ex Parte- 0. R., supra. 
 In re and ex parte Hester, supra. * S. C. 
 
 K -R l Z-,i e o e " S ew parte ^ cial Receiver (1901) , 2 K. B. 39 ; 70 L J 
 
 Lf'w : ^ ans " 227 - In this case no d'st-nction seems to have been 
 
 maae between the receiving order and the adjudication. 
 
 Brandon v. McHenry (1891), 1 Q. B. 538; 60 L. J. Q. B 448 
 In re Pearce (1909) , 2 Ch. 492 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 628 ; 16 Mans 191. 
 
544 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Effect of 
 
 annulment 
 
 generally. 
 
 section 62 a claim from being barred by the Statute of Limita- 
 tions, it would seem that although the bankruptcy is 
 annulled the claim will continue to be barred 5 . 
 
 Where a composition is entered into on condi- 
 tion that a bankruptcy shall be annulled, which is done, 
 matters are in the same position as if there had been 
 no bankruptcy subject to this that there has been a sub- 
 stitution of rights under the composition for the reme- 
 dies which the creditors would otherwise have had in 
 respect of their debts 6 . Thus where proof has been 
 made in bankruptcy by secured creditors who value 
 their security, proving for the balance, and a composi- 
 tion is agreed to in respect of which they receive a 
 dividend on the unsecured balance, and the bankruptcy 
 is annulled, the secured creditors do not thereby become 
 absolute purchasers of the property comprised in the 
 security 7 , but the security remains a security and the 
 debtor becomes entitled to redeem upon payment of 
 the assessed value with interest from, the date of the 
 receiving order 8 . Similarly it was decided under The 
 Bankruptcy Act of 1869 that where a composition had 
 been accepted and the bankruptcy annulled, and the 
 whole estate of the debtor transferred to the person 
 who guaranteed the composition, the property was so 
 transferred, subject to the right to set off debts which 
 would have been provable in the bankruptcy . It was 
 also held under the same Act that execution creditors 
 who would have lost the benefit of their execution had 
 the bankruptcy gone on were in no better position 
 when the bankruptcy was annulled and a composition 
 was entered into for their benefit as well as that of the 
 other creditors 10 , for the court retained jurisdiction in 
 spite of the annulment of the bankruptcy 1 . 
 
 s Markwick v. Hardingham (1880), 15 Oh. D. 339. 
 
 "In re Orpen, Beswiek v. Orpen (1880), 16 Ch. D. 202; 50 L. J. 
 Ch. 25. 
 
 ' Bocitti mniral de Paris v. Geen (1883), S A. C. 606; 53 h. J. 
 Ch. 153; Pearce v. Bullard (1908),. 1 Ch. 780; 77 L. J. Ch. 340. 
 
 8 Pearce v. Bullard (1908 ) , 1 Oh. 780 ; 77 L. J. Oh. 340, as modified 
 by In re Pearce (1909) , 2 Ch. 492 ; 78 L. J. Ch. 628 ; 16 Mans. 191. 
 
 'West v. Baker (1875), 1 Ex. D. 44; see also Bailey v. Johnson 
 (1872). L. E. 7 Ex. 263; <1 L. J. Ex. 211. 
 
 10 Ex parte Lennard in re CHdley (1875), 1 Oh. D. 177; 45 L. J. 
 Bank. 49. 
 
 'S. O, and see Bailey v. Johnson (1872), L. R. 7 Ex. 263; 41 
 L. J. Ex. 211. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 545 
 
 Section .62(4) provides for payment in full of debts section 62 
 in certain cases by bond and by payment into court, when debts 
 Apart from this provision, it bas been decided that |^_ paia ™ 
 debts are not- "paid in full" when part of the creditors 
 have been paid in full and the remainder have given 
 an unconditional release 2 . Payment in full need not 
 necessarily be to the creditor entitled to prove at the 
 time the receiving order was made. It may, it seems, 
 be made to the person beneficially entitled to receive 
 the debt, at least when no proof is on file by the credi- 
 tor who was entitled to prove when the receiving order 
 was made. But when the original creditors have been 
 paid 2 shillings in the pound for their debts by a friend 
 of the bankrupt to whom another friend pays 20 shil- 
 lings in the pound for the debts, they have not been 
 "paid in full" within the meaning of section 62(1) ; for 
 so to hold would be to permit the bankrupt to get rid 
 of his bankruptcy on the terms of paying a small com- 
 position to each of his creditors 3 . 
 
 *In re Keet, ex parte 0. R. (1905), 2 K. B. 666; 74 L. J. K. B. 
 694; 12 Man. 235. 
 
 'Be Burnett ex parte 0. R. (1894), 63 L. J. Q. B. 423 ; 1 Mans. 80. 
 
 B.C— 35 
 
546 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 PART VI. 
 
 COURTS AND PROCEDURE. 
 
 Section 63 
 
 Courts 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 Power of 
 judge in 
 chambers. 
 
 Appeal 
 courts. 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 63 (1) The following named courts are con- 
 stituted Courts of Bankruptcy and invested 
 with such jurisdiction at law and in equity 
 as will enable them to exercise original, 
 auxiliary and ancillary jurisdiction in bank 
 ruptcy and in other proceedings authorized 
 by this Act during their respective terms, as 
 they are now, or may be hereafter, held, and 
 in vacation and in chambers :— 
 (a) In the Provinces of Alberta, British 
 Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario and 
 Prince Edward Island, the Supreme 
 Court of the province ; 
 (6) In the Provinces of Manitoba and Sas- 
 katchewan, the Court of King's Bench of 
 the Province ; 
 (c) In the Province of New Brunswick, -the 
 King's Bench Division of the Supreme 
 Court of the Province ;• 
 (<f) In the Province of Quebec, the Su- 
 perior Court of the Province ; and, 
 O) In the Yukon Territory, the Territorial 
 Court of the Yukon Territory. 
 
 (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and 
 to General Rules, the judge of the court 
 exercising jurisdiction in bankruptcy or in 
 authorized assignment proceedings may 
 exercise in chambers the whole or any part 
 of his jurisdiction. 
 
 (3) The courts in this subsection named are 
 constituted Appeal Courts of Bankruptcy, 
 and, subject to the provisions of this Act 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. * 547 
 
 with respect to appeals, are invested with sect"" & 
 power and jurisdiction to make or render 
 on appeal asserted, heard and decided ac- 
 cording to their ordinary procedure, except 
 as varied by General Rules, the order or 
 decision which ought to have been made or 
 rendered by the court appealed from. All 
 appeals asserted under authority of this Act 
 shall be made, — 
 (a) In the Provinces of Nova Scotia and 
 
 Prince Edward Island, to the Supreme 
 
 Court in banc of the Province ; 
 (&) In the Provinces of British Columbia, 
 
 Manitoba and Saskatchewan, to the Court 
 
 of Appeal of the Province ; 
 
 (c) In the Provinces of Ontario and 
 Alberta, to the Appellate Division of the 
 Supreme Court of the Province ; 
 
 (d) In the Province of New Brunswick, to 
 the Appeal Division of the Supreme 
 Court of the Province ; 
 
 (e) In the Province of Quebec, to the 
 Appeal side of the Court of King's 
 Bench ; 
 
 (/) In the Yukon Territory, to the Court 
 of Appeal of the Province of British 
 Columbia. 
 
 Cross References Act: Sittings and constitution of courts, 64 ; 
 courts defined, 2(1) ; bankruptcy d'stricts and divisions,. 64(5) ; enforce- 
 ment of orders throughout Canada, 71(1) ; courts to be auxiliary to 
 each other, 71(2) ; trial of issue by any judge of the courts of the 
 province, 71(3); cf. 6(1), 7; enforcement of warrants, 72, 73; review 
 and appeal, 74; appeal court defined, 2(c) ; general rules, 66; powers of 
 registrar, .65 ; fees, 67; terrifcoral limitation of jurisdiction of trustees, 
 14(2) ; bankruptcy districts and divisions, 64(5) ; application to court 
 for directions, 18(d). 
 
 Cross References Rules: Court defined, 2(1); judge - defined, 
 2(1) ; all matters to be heard in chambers 4; jurisdiction of registrar, 
 5, 64 ; adjournment from registrar to judge, 6 ; transfer of proceedings 
 to another court, 11 ; proceedings commenced in wrong court, 12 ; leave 
 to proceed under Winding Vp Act, 13 ; summary trial of car.ain matters, 
 120 ; sittings, 63 ; registrars may act for one another, 64 ; execution of 
 orders, 65 ; general practice under rules, 152. 
 
548 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section G3 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. 96(1), 105(1), 
 
 101; 1883, s. 102; 1869, H . 72; 1849, s. 12; Winding Up Act, 1906, 
 
 c. 144, ss. 2(e), 101, 102. The Insolvent Acts, 1875, ss. 2(c) (d), 125, 
 128; 1869, s. 50. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 Amendments. 
 Three main topics : 
 
 A. Extent of jurisdiction. 
 
 B. Territorial limitation. 
 
 0. Discretional exercise of jurisdiction conferred. 
 
 A. Extent of Jurisdiction Conferred. 
 
 Jurisdiction under Act of 1849. 
 
 No jurisdiction as regards strangers unless they, submit. 
 
 Simple creditors are strangers for some purposes. 
 Mortgagee qua mortgagee not subject to jurisdiction. 
 Jurisdiction under the Act of 1869. 
 Jurisdiction over strangers., 
 And creditors. 
 
 Cases indicating a more limited jurisdiction. 
 Effect of the Act of 1883. 
 
 Jurisdiction under Insolvency and Winding Up Acts. 
 Winding Up Act. 
 
 Constitutional question raised by Stewart v. Lepage. 
 Jurisdiction given by section 133 of the Winding-up Act. 
 Whether jurisdiction is exclusive or concurrent. 
 Claims by mortgagees. 
 Unpaid vendor's lien. 
 Master's jurisdiction. 
 Jurisdiction actually conferred on Courts of Bankruptcy. 
 All that Parliament was competent to give. 
 Examples. 
 Jurisdiction at law and in equity. 
 
 B. Territorial Limitation to Jurisdiction Conferred. 
 
 Provincial limitation to jurisdiction. 
 Position under Winding Up Act. 
 
 Positive extra-territorial jurisdiction : 
 
 (a) Restraint of actions in other provinces. 
 (6) Assets out of the province fall under the disposition 
 of the court. 
 Negative extra-territorial jurisdiction. 
 Limits to exercise of extra-territorial discretion. 
 Other pertinent sections of The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 C. Discretional Exercise of the Jurisdiction Conferred. 
 
 Bankruptcy Act differs from Winding Up Act and Insolvency Acts. 
 
 Exercise of discretion. 
 
 Refusal to exercise jurisdiction. 
 Objections to the jurisdiction and to the exercise of the jurisdiction. 
 Decisions in different provinces. 
 
 Amend- Section 63 is given in the form in which it has been 
 
 ments - left by the amendments contained in sections 45 and 
 
 46 of The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY AOT. ' 549 
 
 In considering the jurisdiction conferred on the Section 63 
 Courts of Bankruptcy by section 63, three principal ThTee ma in 
 topics emerge for discussion. toplcs - 
 
 (a) The extent of the jurisdiction conferred by theA. Extent_ 
 words, "such jurisdiction at law and in equity as will? io ] n uns ' 
 enable them to exercise original, auxiliary and ancil- 
 lary jurisdiction in bankruptcy and in other proceed- 
 ings authorized by this Act". 
 
 (b) The question whether there is a provincial ter- ^rianfmita- 
 ritorial limitation to the jurisdiction conferred. tion. 
 
 {c) Questions of policy or discretion with respect c. Discre- 
 te the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred. exercise of 
 
 jurisdiction 
 conferred^ 
 
 A. Extent of Jurisdiction Conferred. 
 
 In considering the extent of the jurisdiction con- 
 ferred by the words "such jurisdiction at law and in 
 equity as will enable them to exercise original, auxili- 
 ary and ancillary jurisdiction in bankruptcy and in 
 other proceedings authorized by this act", a concep- 
 tion of what is meant by original auxiliary and ancil- 
 lary jurisdiction in bankruptcy can best be obtained by 
 a survey of the jurisdiction conferred by the various 
 bankruptcy and winding-up statutes since 1849, In 
 following this legislation it will be seen that there has 
 been a steady movement toward the position that 
 whether or not original jurisdiction in bankruptcy 
 extends to disputes between the debtor or his trustee 
 and "strangers" to the bankruptcy, that is to say 
 persons who are not in their quality of litigants simple 
 creditors or contributories, it is a convenient and per- 
 haps necessary jurisdiction which should belong to the 
 bankruptcy court to be exercised when required. 
 
 It will be convenient first to consider the jurisdic- jurisdiction 
 tion under the English Act of 1849*. Section 12 of that o f n i849 Act 
 Act reads : 
 
 " 12. That the court in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction 
 by virtue of this Act shall have superintendence and control in all 
 matters of bankruptcy, and shall hear, determine and make order 
 in any matter of bankruptcy whatever, so far as the assignees are 
 concerned relating to the disposition of the estate and effects of 
 the .bankrupt or of any estate or effects taken under the bank- 
 
 '12 anrl 13 Vic. t. 106. 
 
550 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 63 
 
 No jurisdic- 
 tion as 
 regards 
 stpangers 
 unless they 
 submit. 
 
 Simple 
 creditors 
 strangers 
 for some 
 purposes. 
 
 Mortgagee 
 qua mort- 
 gagee not 
 subject to 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 ruptcy and claimed by the assignees for the benefit of the creditors, 
 : or relating to any acts done or sought to be done by the assignees 
 in their character of assignees by virtue or under colour of the 
 bankruptcy, and also in any matter of bankruptcy whatever as 
 between the assignees and any creditor or other person appearing 
 and submitting to the jurisdiction of the court . . ." 
 
 Under this section it was held 6 that while the Court 
 had jurisdiction over the estate of the bankrupt it had 
 no power to determine, as between the assignees and 
 strangers claiming adversely, what was the estate , 
 although the court had jurisdiction to interfere at the 
 instance of a stranger to prevent irreparable waste 7 . 
 
 But if a stranger applied for and obtained an order 
 in the bankruptcy he brought himself within the juris- 
 diction so far as related to the order, and might be 
 restrained from doing any act inconsistent with or tend- 
 ing to impede its operation 8 . 
 
 The court further had jurisdiction over a creditor 
 who came in and proved or claimed so far, as related 
 to such proof or claim, and the debt which was the sub- 
 ject of it 9 ; but it had no power to order a creditor 
 who had proved to give up property in his possession, 
 of which he claimed to be the owner 10 . 
 
 Nor could the court compel a mortgagee who did 
 not, apply for a sale of his security to give up title 
 deeds held by him 1 or determine the priorities of incum- 
 brancers without their consent 2 or compel the pur- 
 chaser of property sold by its directions specifically to 
 perform his contract 3 . 
 
 s See Bobson Bankruptcy, 1st edition, 1870,. Butterworth, pp. 32-34 ; 
 Griffith Bankruptcy, Stevens & Sons, 1869, Vol. 1, pp. 70-73. 
 
 "& parte Holder, 1 M. & A. 518; Eat. parte Heath, M. & Bl. 169; 
 Ilalford v Gillo-w, 13 Sim. 44 ; Ex. parte Wiggins, M. & B1.-168. 
 
 ' Ex parte Heath, M. & Bl. 169 ; Ex parte Wiggins, M. & Bl. 168 ; 
 Ex parte Elliston, 2- M. & A. 365. 
 
 8 Ex parte Bosannet, 1 Rose 181; Ex parte Pease., 1 Kose 232; 
 Ex parte Anderton, M. & Mac. 177 ; Ex parte Ainsworth, 3 M. & A. 451 ; 
 Ex parte Allison, 1 G. & J. 210. 
 
 Ex parte Diaok, 2 M. & A. 675 ; Ex parte Chambers, M. & Mac. 
 130 ; Ex parte Flower, DeG. 503. 
 
 "Ex parte Dooson, 1 M. & A. 666 ; 4 D. & Ch. 69; Ex parte Ack- 
 royd, 1 G. & J. 391 ; Ex parte Timorill, Buck 305 ; Ex parte Hilton, 
 J. & W. 467 ; Ex parte Follett, DeG. 212 ; Ex parte Ainsworth, 3 M. & 
 A. 451 ; 2 Dea 563. 
 
 x Ex parte Poole, 1 Ves. Jr. 160. 
 
 2 Ex parte Allison, 1 G. & J. 210 ; Ex parte Royds, 3 D. & C. 294. 
 
 3 Ex parte Cutis, 3 M. & A. 549 ; 3 Dea 242. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 551 
 
 A considerable change in the law was made by the Section 63 
 Act of 1869*. Section 72 of that Act reads :— jurisdiction 
 
 . , . under the 
 "72. Subject to the provisions of this Act, every court having Act of 1869. 
 jurisdiction in bankruptcy under this Act shall have full power to 
 decide all questions of priorities, and "all other questions whatso- 
 ever, whether of law or fact, arising in any case of bankruptcy 
 coming within the cognizance of such court, or which the court 
 may deem it expedient or necessary to decide for the purpose of 
 doing complete justice or making a complete distribution of pro- 
 perty in any such case; . . . " 
 
 In the early, and much discussed, case of In re and jurisdiction 
 ex parte Anderson?, it was decided that the court had °^ra ng€rs . 
 jurisdiction to grant an injunction^ restraining a per- 
 son not a party to the bankruptcy proceedings from 
 dealing with property alleged to have been fraudu- 
 lently assigned before bankruptcy, for it was said the 
 court had complete jurisdiction to decide every ques- 
 tion that it might be considered necessary to decide 
 with a view to the distribution of the bankrupt's estate 6 . 
 The court, therefore, also had power to restrain a per- 
 son within the jurisdiction from enforcing a claim 
 abroad to part of the bankrupt's property there situ- 
 ate 7 . 
 
 It was further held that the Court of Bankruptcy And 
 had power to restrain a creditor from bringing against creditors, 
 the trustee under a liquidation an action on a bill of 
 sale given by the debtor, the validity of which was dis- 
 puted by the trustee, James, L.J., saying: "Instead 
 of allowing whatever is left of the estate to be frittered 
 away in litigation the Legislature has determined that 
 there shall be one court to decide all these questions'". 
 Further where an execution creditor had seized pro- 
 perty of the debtor and thereupon the debtor presented 
 a petition for liquidation by arrangement with, his 
 creditors and obtained an injunction restraining 
 
 *32 and 33 Vic. c. 71. 
 
 5 (1870), L. R. 5 Ch. 473 ; 39 L. J. Bank. 49. 
 
 'In re and ex parte Anderson (1870), L. R. 5 Ch. 473; 39> L. J. 
 Bank. 49; Ealliday v Harris (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 668; 43 L. J. Bank. 
 350. 
 
 ' Ealliday v. Harris, supra. 
 
 'Ex parte Cohen in re Sparke (1871), L. R. 7 Ch. 20; 41 L. J. 
 Bank. 16, and see .Ea parte Macdonald in re Beveridge (1871), 24 L. T. 
 475; Ex parte Rumooll, In re RumboU and Taylor (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 
 842 ; 40 L. J. Bank. 82, at 84. 
 
552 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 63 further proceedings in the execution, it was held 1 that 
 after the creditors had accepted a composition the 
 effect of which was to free the debtor from his debts 
 except only as to the composition, that the court had. 
 jurisdiction to permit the sheriff to proceed with his 
 . execution . 
 Cases On the other hand there are cases under section 72 
 
 moreiimUed of the Act of 1869 tending to limit the jurisdiction 
 jurisdiction, conferred. 10 Thus it was held that section 72 of the 
 Act of 1869 did not enable the Court of Bankruptcy 
 to draw within the sphere of its jurisdiction property 
 not vested in the assignee, or the owners of such pro- 
 perty, and a fortiori it did not authorize the Court of 
 Bankruptcy to work out a decree made in Chancery 
 against such persons, 11 nor did it enable the court to 
 adjudicate on the question whether a distress levied 
 before the commission of an act of bankruptcy by the 
 debtor was right or wrong 1 . 
 Effect of When the Act of 1883 was in preparation it was 
 
 ^|^ ctof apparently decided to remove all doubts on the ques- 
 tion of jurisdiction, and to make it clear that the rule 
 laid down in Ex parte Dickin m re Pollard 2 , for the 
 exercise of the judicial discretion was not an inflexible 
 one, and that the High Court was to be free to do com- 
 plete justice or to make a complete distribution of 
 property in the case. 
 
 Section 102 of that Statute 3 reads : — 
 
 102(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every court having 
 jurisdiction in bankruptcy under this Act shall have full power 
 to decide all questions of priorities, and all other questions what- 
 soever, whether of law or fact, which may arise in any case of 
 bankruptcy coming within the cognizance of the court, or which 
 
 'Ex parte Sheriff of Middlesex in re England (1871), L. R. 12 
 Eq. 207 ; 40 L. J. Bank. 65. 
 
 10 Ex parte Diclcin in re Pollard (1878) , 8 Ch. D. 377 ; 48 L. J. Bank. 
 36, decided that as a general rule cases in which the title- of the trustee 
 did not depend on the peculiar law of bankruptcy, as is the case in a 
 mere .money demand by the trustee against third parties, ought as a 
 matter of discretion to be left to the ordinary tribunals. 
 
 11 In re Motion, Maule v. Davis (1873), L. R. 9 Ch. 192; 43 L. J. 
 Bank. 59; and see per Selborne, L.C., in Ellis v. Silber (1872), L. R. 
 S Ch. 83; 421 L. J. Ch. 666; and of. Ex parte i Pannell in re England 
 (1877), 6 Ch. D. 335 ; 47 L. J. Bank. 21 
 
 1 Ex parte Eatough & Co., Ltd., In re Cliffe (1880), 42 L. T. 95. 
 * (1878),. 8 Ch. D. 377; 48 L. J. Bank. 36. 
 " 46 and 47 Vic. e. 52. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 553 
 
 the court may deem it expedient or necessary to decide for the Section 63 
 
 purpose of doing complete justice or making a complete distribution ■ 
 
 of property in any such case: — 
 
 Provided that the jurisdiction of the County Court hereby given 
 shall not be exercised by the County Court for the purpose of 
 adjudicating upon any claim not arising out of the bankruptcy which 
 might heretofore have been enforced by action in the High Court, 
 unless all parties to the proceeding consent thereto, or the money, 
 money's worth, or right in dispute does not in the opinion of the 
 judge exceed in value two hundred pounds. 
 
 This section was re-enacted without substantial 
 change in section 105 of the present English Act 4 . 
 
 These English Statutes and cases from 1849 on are jurisdiction 
 valuable as ' indicating in what cases a court may be"^„"™ 1 " 
 said to be exercising original jurisdiction in bank- winding-up 
 ruptcy, and in what cases auxiliary and ancillary. It 
 is important next to consider the same matter from 
 the point of view of courts under a federal constitu- 
 tion. The cases on the various Canadian Insolvent 
 Acts can best be considered along with the cases under 
 the Winding-Up Acts; for the schemes of these sets 
 of acts as regards jurisdiction are similar. 
 
 The Winding-up Act 5 contains no clause purport- winding-up 
 ing to define the jurisdiction given to the provincial Act ' 
 courts which are named in the Act. The jurisdiction 
 conferred must be determined by the scope of the Act. 
 The four most important sections .for the purpose 
 of the discussion in hand are 18, 22, 23 and 133, which 
 read : — 
 
 * 
 
 18. The court may, upon the application of the company, or of Actions 
 any creditor or contributory, at any time after the presentation against 
 of a petition for a winding-up order and before making the order, Jj??i P hf y 
 restrain further proceedings in any action, suit or proceeding stayed, 
 against the company, upon such terms as the court thinks fit. 
 
 22. After the winding-up order is made, no suit, action or After wind- 
 other proceeding shall be proceeded with or commenced against the ing;WP order 
 company, except with the leave of the court and subject to such actions 
 terms as the court imposes. company 
 
 23. Every attachment, sequestration, distress or execution put stayed. 
 
 in force against the estate or effects of the company after the Execution, 
 making of the winding-up order shall be void. etc > against 
 
 133. All remedies sought or demanded for enforcing any claim vo i,j, 
 for a debt, privilege, mortgage, lien or right of property upon, in!R eme( jies 
 or to any effects or property in the hands, possession or custody obtained by 
 
 summary 
 
 1 (1914), 4 and 5 Geo. V. c. 59. order - 
 
 "H. S. C. 1906, c. 144. 
 
554 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 63 of a liquidator, may foe obtained by an order of the court on sum- 
 
 mary petition, and not by any action, suit, attachment, seizure or 
 
 other proceeding of any kind whatsoever. 
 
 Section 133 corresponds with section 50 of The 
 Insolvent Act of 1869 6 , and with section 125 of The 
 Insolvent Act of 1875 7 . 
 
 The same fluctuation of judicial opinion, with 
 respect to the jurisdiction conferred and the discre- 
 tionary exercise of that jurisdiction, as occurred under 
 the various English Acts above referred to, is to be 
 noticed in our courts. The questions of territorial 
 limitation of the jurisdiction conferred, and of the 
 discretional exercise of that jurisdiction, to be treated 
 later, must be distinguished from the subject now being 
 dealt with, namely the jurisdiction conferred on pro- 
 vincial courts with respect to actions or process in the 
 same province against insolvent persons or companies 
 and their representatives. 
 
 Until the case of Stewart v. Lepage", it was con- 
 sidered that The Winding-up Act had established a 
 forum for the determination of all questions incident 
 to the liquidation and the adjustment of the rights 
 of all interested in the due winding up of the company, 
 including the distribution of assets, to which forum 
 all claiming under the jurisdiction must resort'; but 
 that those who had claims adverse to the company and 
 adverse to the liquidator could not be compelled to 
 attorn to the bankruptcy forum and to submit their 
 claims to adjudication there 9 . 
 
 Stewart v. Lepage™ laid down a much wider 
 rule and appears to establish the proposition that 
 the Dominion Parliament has jurisdiction to con- 
 fine ' ' strangers ' ' to the bankruptcy to the bankruptcy 
 
 6 32 and 33 Vic. c. 16. 
 
 ' 38 Vie. c. 16. 
 
 8 (1916) , 58 S. C. R. 337. 
 
 "In re Ontario Bank (1916), 38 O. L. R. 242; In re Tooique 
 Gypsum Co., Costigan v Langley (1903), 6 O. L. R. S15 ; In re Sun 
 Lithographing Co., Farquhar's Claim (1892), 22 O. R.! 57; Burke v. 
 McWhirter (1874), 35 U. C. Q. B. 1, 5, 6; MiteheU Canadian Commer- 
 cial Corporations (1916), p. 1579. The function of the court was 
 administrative: In re Maritime Triest Co., IAS,., and Burns & Co. (1916), 
 26 D. L. R. 92. 
 
 10 (1016), 58 S. C. R. 337. 
 
 Constitu- 
 tional ques- 
 tion raised 
 by Stewart 
 v. Lepage. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 555 
 
 forum in the prosecution of actions against the trus- section 63 
 tee or the insolvent 1 . The court, however, was not 
 unanimous: Davies, J., delivered a dissenting judg- 
 ment, saying 2 : ' ' Now I can well understand that such 
 an enactment, however far-reaching it might be and 
 however much it might interfere • with civil rights in 
 the province in so far as it dealt with creditors or con- 
 tributories or assets of the company and so was rea- 
 sonably necessary for the purpose Parliament was 
 legislating upon, would be intra vires of the Dominion 
 Parliament, but I should more than doubt the power of 
 Parliament when legislating upon the subject-matter 
 of bankruptcy and insolvency to deal with and take 
 away the rights of third parties not creditors or con- 
 tributories of the company and not claiming any right 
 to share in the distribution of the assets of the insol- 
 vent company 3 . 
 
 Assuming that there is jurisdiction in. the Domin- 
 ion to interfere with the right of "strangers" to sue 
 the debtor or his trustee, it has yet to be decided 
 whether there is jurisdiction to compel ' ' strangers ' ' to 
 submit to bankruptcy jurisdiction at the suit of the 
 liquidator 4 . The Winding-up Act does not attempt to 
 confer any such jurisdiction. There is therefore no 
 jurisdiction to determine in a summary application the 
 
 'W In re J. McCarthy & Sons Co. of Prescott, Ltd. (1916), 38 
 0. L. E. 3 ; 32 D. L. R. 441. It has even been said that there is jurisdic- 
 tion under section 133, not only to stay,- hut also to dismiss an action 
 brought against the liquidator for the full price of goods received by him 
 after the commencement of the winding up : B. J. Carson & Go. v. The 
 Montreal Trust Co. (1915), 49 N. S. R. 50. The power given by sec- 
 tion 22 of The Winding Up Act is a discretional power : In re\ R. J. 
 McCarthy & Sons Co. of Prescott, Ltd, supra; In re The Gushing 
 Sulphite Fibre Co., Ltd. (1906), 38 N. B. R. 581. Under The Winding 
 Up Act there was jurisdiction to hold a petition for winding up in 
 suspense while an action was being, tried in another court seeking to 
 have the resolution on which the petition was bas'edi set aside on the 
 ground of fraud: Belanger v. Union AUtibi Mining Co. (1917), 32 
 D- L. R. 700; 25 Que. K. B. 376. There is no such thing as the con- 
 solidation of an action and a winding up : Bailey Cobalt Mines, Ltd. v. 
 Benson (1918) , 43 0. L. R. 321. 
 
 2 At p. 342. 
 . 3 Compare Crombie v. Jackson (1874), 34 U. C. Q. B. 575, and see 
 Clement, the Law of the Canadian Constitution,. 3rd edition, 1916, pp. 
 536-7. 
 
 'Cf. Kurtz and McLean, Ltd. (1908), 11 O. W. R. 437. 
 
556 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 63 
 
 Jurisdiction 
 given by 
 section 133 
 of the 
 
 Winding-up 
 Act 
 
 Whether 
 jurisdiction 
 ia exclusive 
 or concur- 
 rent. 
 
 validity of instruments held by outsi'de parties not con- 
 nected with the company 5 . 
 
 It is important to define what jurisdiction is con- 
 ferred by section 133 of The Winding-up Act'. It 
 should be remembered that there is no English equiva- 
 lent of section 133. This explains the difference 
 between English and Canadian cases 6 . 
 
 The jurisdiction conferred by section 133 may be 
 said to be an exclusive jurisdiction in the sense that 
 in cases falling within it.no action may 'be brought or 
 proceeded with in Canada without leave of the court 
 in which the winding-up proceedings are being con- 
 ducted 7 , and that court may decide to give a summary 
 remedy. 8 But in another sense it can be said that the 
 jurisdiction is concurrent, and not exclusive; for 
 actions commenced without leave of the Winding-up 
 Court are irregular only not void", and actions may be 
 
 *In re Maritime Trust Co., Ltd. & Burns &<Co. (1916),, 26 D. L. 
 R. 92. 
 
 '•Stewart v. Lepage (1916), 53 S. C. R. 337 ; /» re R. J. McCarthy 
 cG Sons (1916), 38 O. L. R. 3; 32 D. L. R. 441. 
 
 7 Baseter v. The International Steel Co., 10 Que. P. R. 27 ; Larocque 
 v. Lajoie, 17 L. C. (J. 41; Ouimet v. Tees et al., 5 L. R. p. 483; 
 RolUlard v. Blanchet (1901), Q. R. 19 S. G. 383. It is submitted that 
 the same rule will apply under the Bankruptcy Act (though the 
 Statute is none too clear on this point) and that after the making of a 
 receiving order by the court of one province the court of another province 
 has not jurisdiction to determine whether the action against the debtor 
 should be allowed to proceed or not. An application to stay proceedings 
 improperly commenced or continued should be made to the court of the 
 province in which they are being carried on ; but an application for leave 
 to proceed should be made to the court of Bankruptcy which is seized 
 of the bankruptcy proceedings. In Salter v. St. Lawrence Lumber Co* 
 Ltd. (1896), 28 N. S. R. 335, however, the Supreme Court of Nova 
 Scotia considered whether the proceedings taken in that province after 
 the making of a winding-up order by the Supreme Court of New Bruns- 
 wick might more conveniently be dealt with in the winding-up proceed- 
 ings. It was held under the Insolvent Act of 1869 that no judge in the 
 Province of Quebec had jurisdiction over proceedings in. insolvency com- 
 menced in Ontario where the insolvent had his domicil, even when the 
 assignee resided in the Province of Quebec and the affairs of the estate 
 were conducted at Montreal: In re McDonnell (1871), 15 L. C. J. 145; 
 3 Rev. Leg. 122. 
 
 s As this is but the substitution of one forum for another, it has no 
 effect on the running of the Statute of Limitations against the trustee. 
 Service of the notice of motion is in this connection equivalent to the 
 commencement of an action: In re Mansel, ex parte "Norton (1891), 9 
 Mor. 198. 
 
 "And so may be stayed: BUis v. Banker's Trust Corporation 
 (1913), 25 W. L. B. 653; 14 D. L. R. 277; Lavell v. Canadian Mineral 
 Ruooer Co. (1914) , 14 D. L. R. 521. ,It has been said that where proceed- 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 557 
 
 instituted and proceeded with in other courts on leave Sections 
 of the Winding-up Court where that is necessary 10 . 
 
 "Section 133 does not oust the jurisdiction of the 
 Courts, but establishes an additional tribunal in any 
 case coming within its provisions leaving it to the 
 court in each case to determine whether the matters in 
 controversy can be more advantageously dealt with in 
 the summary manner provided by the Act than in an 
 ordinary action" 1 . 
 
 Section 133 applies to a claim by a mortgagee seek- Claims by 
 ing to obtain possession 2 , or for foreclosure of a mort- 
 gage on property in the " hands, possession or custody 
 of a liquidator" 3 , but not where the property never 
 has been in the hands, possession or custody of the 
 liquidator*. Nor is there jurisdiction under the sec- 
 tion to make a mortgagee a party against his will to 
 proceedings under the act between a vendor and the 
 liquidator 5 . In re Raven Lake Portland Cement Co., 
 National Trust v. Trusts & Guarantee*, it was doubted 
 whether section 133 applied to an action against liqui- 
 dators brought by a mortgagee who claimed in the 
 alternative either the proceeds of the sale of certain 
 
 tags have been continued after the making of a winding-up order without 
 leave of the court, the court need not require the parties to recommence 
 proceedings but may give leave to proceed on terms such as the payment 
 of the costs of the liquidator in the proceedings taken without authority : 
 Re Winnipeg and Western Development Co. (1915) , 33 W. L. R. 749. 
 The fact that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the bankruptcy pro- 
 ceedings may possibly affect the disposition of costs : Lavell v. Canadian 
 Mineral Rubier Go. (1914), 14 D. L. R. 541. 
 
 10 Michigan Trust Co. v. Canadian Puget Sound Lumber Co. (1918), 
 3 W. W. R. 273; Ellis v. Silber (1872), L. R. 8 Ch. 83; 42 L. J. 
 Oh. 666 ; White v. Simmons (1871) , L. R. 6 Ch. 555 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 689 ; 
 Waddell v. Toleman (1878), 9 Ch. D. 212; Distress or execution!" put 
 into effect after the making of the winding-up order is wholly void : 
 Salter v. St. Lawrence Lumber Co., Ltd. (1896) , 28 N. S. R. 335 ; Ex 
 parte Fourdrmiere, 21 Ch. D. 510. Consequently the sheriff cannot be 
 allowed his costs against the liquidator: Ex nihilo nihil fit: In re Pro- 
 iueers Rock and Gravel Co., Ltd. (1914), 14 D. L. R. 289. 
 
 *Per Mulbck, C.J., In re Kurtz and McLean, Ltd. (1908), 11,0. 
 W. R. 437. 
 
 'Dumble v. White, 32 U. C. Q. B. 601; CromUe v. Jackson, 34 
 U. C Q, B. 579, 584, even where he has not proved : Archibald v. 
 Haldan, 30 U. C. Q. B. 30. 
 
 'Michigan Trust Co. v. Canadian Puget Sound Lumber Co. (1918), 
 3 W. W. R. 273. 
 
 'Michigan Trust Co. v. Canadian Puget Sound Lumber Co., supra. 
 ! Kurtz and McLean, Ltd., supra. 
 *.(1911), 24 0. L. R. 286. 
 
558 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section I 
 
 Unpaid 
 
 vendor's 
 
 lien. 
 
 Master's 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 Jurisdiction 
 actually 
 conferred on 
 courts of 
 bankruptcy. 
 
 All that 
 Parliament 
 was com- 
 petent to 
 give. 
 
 Examples. 
 
 goods, chattels and book debts mortgaged in trust to 
 secure bonds; or damages for the conversion. 
 
 Section 133 applies to the claim of an unpaid vendor 
 to property which he seeks to recover from' an insolvent 
 company 7 . 
 
 A master under The Winding-up Act has no juris- 
 diction to order rescission or to make the vendor 
 account for any profit that may have accrued to him 8 . 
 
 It remains to consider the jurisdiction actually 
 conferred on the Courts of Bankruptcy by the words : 
 "The following named courts are constituted Courts 
 of Bankruptcy and invested with such jurisdiction 
 at law and in equity as will enable them to exercise 
 original, auxiliary and ancillary jurisdiction in bank- 
 ruptcy and in other proceedings authorized by this 
 Act". 
 
 These words are very wide, and appear to invest 
 the Courts of Bankruptcy with the fullest jurisdiction 
 which the Dominion Parliament is competent to con- 
 fer. It would be difficult to suggest more comprehen- 
 sive words 9 . 
 
 It would seem, therefore, that in addition to the 
 cases already referred to in which the court exercised 
 jurisdiction in bankruptcy and insolvency the Court of 
 Bankruptcy has power to direct the mode in which 
 meetings may be held, and the mode in which proxies 
 shall be evidenced, including . the question whether 
 it is necessary that proxies be produced at the meeting 
 or whether the results of the proxies may be tele- 
 graphed 10 . It has in effect been held in Quebec that 
 the, court can, before the appointment of inspectors, 
 give the trustee the permission to act which the inspec- 
 tors may give under section 20. Thus the court has 
 authorized the trustee to sell part of the property of 
 the bankrupt in order to provide funds for necessary 
 
 7 Kurtz and McLean, Ltd., supra. 
 
 "In re Hess (1895), 23 S. O. E.. 644, 665, 666, nor is the Master a 
 " court of competent jurisdiction " far the purpose of trying a question 
 of a transfer alleged to be a fraudulent preference : Hart v. Ontario 
 Express (1898), 25 O. R. 247. 
 
 " See generally as to jurisdiction in matters auxiliary and ancillary 
 to bankruptcy and insolvency legislation : Attorney-General of Ontario 
 v. Attorney-General of Canada (1894), A. C. 189, 200. 
 
 10 English, Scottish and Australian, etc.; Bank (1893), 3 Ch. 385, 
 395-6, 410-411. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. ~o~M 
 
 expenses 11 , or to contest an action in a foreign court 12 , section 63 
 The court has jurisdiction to restrain, at the instance _ 
 of an interim receiver, an authorized trustee appointed 
 on the petition of another creditor, from proceeding 
 with the sale of the property 13 . The Court has juris- 
 . diction to sanction a scheme between the trustee and an 
 official assignee abroad for the pooling of all assets 
 at home and abroad ; and their rateable distribution 
 of them among local and foreign creditors 1 . 
 
 Further, where a secured creditor desires to rea- 
 lize his security, but cannot do so before the time 
 for the payment of the first dividend and so cannot 
 prove, semble the court has jurisdiction to direct the 
 trustee to make such a reservation as will prevent an 
 injustice being done 2 . It would seem that composi- 
 tion proceedings remain within the jurisdiction of the 
 court after the composition has been approved 3 . The 
 only provision in The Bankruptcy Act and Rules which 
 is analogous to section 133 of The Winding-up Act is 
 Eule 120. 
 
 The Court of Bankruptcy is invested with jurisdic- Jurisdiction 
 tion at law and in equity. Under the Act of 1869 it was Equity. a 
 said that the Court of Bankruptcy was a complete 
 court of law and equity to determine all questions for 
 the distribution of assets in bankruptcy*. The Court 
 of Bankruptcy is a Court of Equity so far as costs 
 are concerned 5 . 
 
 11 In re Thornton, Davidson & Co. (1921), 1 C. B. R. 381 (Bruneau, 
 J.) and see In re Thornton, Davidson & Co. (1921), 1 0. B. R. 383 
 (Bruneau, J.). 
 
 12 In re Thornton, Davidson & Co. (1921), 1 C. B. R. 383 (Surveyor, 
 J.) and see as to handing over property in the possession of the bankrupt, 
 In re Thornton, Davidson & Co., McDonalds Claim (1921), 1 C. B. R. 
 380(Coderre, J.). 
 
 "In re Bonneville & Hollander (1921), 1 C. B. R. 378 (Panne- 
 ton, J.) . 
 
 See In re P. Maefadyen & Co., ex parte Yizianagaram Mining Co., 
 Ltd. (1908), IK. B. 675. 
 
 'Ex parte Good, in re Lee (1880), 14 Ch. D. 82; 49 L. J. 
 Bank. 49. 
 
 'Ex parte Sheriff of Middlesex, m re England (1871), L. R. 12 
 m- 207; 40 L. J. Bank. 65. 
 
 849 *fn Parte bunion, in re Rumboll and Taylor (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 
 i«i, L ' J - Bank - 82 > a t- 84; contrast In re Motion, Maule v. Davis 
 (Mra), L. R. 9 Ch. 192 ; 43 L. J. Bank. 59. 
 
 -therefore if a trustee does nothing wrong he should have his costs 
 140 °m e estafe : In re and ex parte Wainwri « ht ( 1881 > - 19 oh - D - 
 
560 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 B. Territorial Limitation to Jurisdiction Conferred. 
 
 Section 63 i n the Bankruptcy Act as passed in 1919, the wide 
 Provincial jurisdiction conferred on the Courts of Bankruptcy 
 'urumcSon was SUD J ec t to a territorial limitation. The courts 
 mentioned were invested with jurisdiction "within 
 their territorial limits as now established, or as these 
 may be hereafter changed." While this phrase was 
 deleted by section 45 of the Bankruptcy Act Amend- 
 ment Act 1921, there is no section of the Act similar, 
 to section 100(1) of the English Act of 1914, which 
 says : — 
 
 "Subject to the provisions of this Act, every court 
 having original jurisdiction in bankruptcy shall have 
 jurisdiction throughout England".. 
 
 The present position under The Bankruptcy Act 
 appears to be similar to that under the various Insol- 
 vent and Winding-up Acts which contain no such limi- 
 tation". 
 Position Under the Winding-up Act the Courts have both a 
 
 winding-up positive and a negative extra-territorial jurisdiction. 
 Act \ . By virtue of its positive extra-territorial jurisdic- 
 
 extra-terri- tion a provincial court charged with the administra- 
 dicton'Mo) ^ on °f The Winding-up Act is a Dominion Court ad 
 restraint of hoc and can restrain actions in the courts of the other 
 other" 8 provinces connected with the winding-up proceedings 
 or against the liquidator 7 . 
 
 An important difference between The Winding-up 
 and Bankruptcy Acts has Results which may pos- 
 
 8 See The Insolvent Act. 1875, ss. 2(c), 128, 150, 151; The Winding 
 Up Act, 1906, ss. 2(e), 125-127. 
 
 ''Baxter v. Central Bank (1880), 20 O. R. 214; Mowat v. Dominion 
 Trust Co. (1915), 8 Sask. L. R. 404; Brewster v. Canada Iron (1914), 
 7 O. W. N. 128 ; In re Tohique Orypsum Co., Costigan v. Langley (1903) , 
 6 O. L. R. 515; In re International Pulp and Paper Co. (1876), 3 Oh. 
 D. 594. Under the English Companies Act (1862), 25 and 26 Vic. c. 
 89, ss. 87, 122, it was held by Jessel, M.R., in In re International Pulp 
 and Paper Go. (1876), 3 Oh. D. 594, that an English Court seized of 
 winding-up proceedings had jurisdiction to restrain proceedings by an 
 Irish creditor in Ireland against the company. Much of the reasoning of 
 that learned judge is applicable to the situation under The Bankruptcy 
 Act. See also Middleslorough Fire Brick Co. (1885), 52 L. T. 98; 
 In re Herman Loog, Ltd. (1887). 36 Ch. D. 502; In re Queensland 
 Mercantile Agency (1888), 58 L. T. 878; In re Thurso New Oas Co. 
 (1889), 42 Oh. D. 486; In re and ex parte Tait (1872), L. R. 13 Eq. 
 311. 
 
 provinces. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 561 
 
 sibly bear on the jurisdiction of the courts. Under section 63 
 The Bankruptcy Act all the property of the deh- <&> 
 tor vests in the trustee ; under The Winding-up Act the f t s ^f out 
 property of the company does not vest in the liquidator, ^™ t c £f a11 
 but falls under the disposition of the court which disposition 
 virtually takes the place of the directors. The.pro- o£th * court - 
 perty which falls under the disposition of the court in 
 a winding up includes property outside the province, 
 and not alone the assets of the company, hut also the 
 relations of the company with others whether within 
 or without the province 9 . Under The Bankruptcy Act 
 although the authority of the trustee is limited terri- 
 torially he has for the purpose of obtaining possession 
 of and realizing upon the assets of a bankrupt or auth- 
 orized assignor of whom he is trustee, power to act as 
 such anywhere. The liquidator under The Winding-up 
 Act has similar powers. Thus liquidators appointed 
 in one province have power to take possession of pro- 
 perty of the company situate in another province ; and 
 may in their own name take proceedings in such last 
 mentioned province to have set aside an attachment 
 made after the date of the winding-up order 10 . Simi- 
 larly the liquidator of a company being wound up in 
 one province can by petition ask that the seizure of the 
 goods of the company in another province be quashed 
 as made without leave of the court administering the 
 winding up 1 . 
 
 Under The Winding-up Act the courts charged Negative 
 with the administration of the Act have what may be f^"*?^; 
 
 11 j , « tonal juris- 
 
 called a negative extra-territorial jurisdiction. Before diction, 
 an action can be brought in a provincial court 2 against 
 the liquidator or against the company 3 , leave must be 
 
 'Blais v. Banker's Trust Corporation (1913), 25 W. L. R. 653; 14 
 U. L. R. 277; Lavell v. Canadian Mineral Rubber Co., (1914), 14 D. 
 L. R. 521. Therefore the beneficial interest in choses in action belonging 
 to the company in 'other provinces is no longer " assets of the company 
 liable to judgment " sufficient to give those other provincial courts power 
 to allow service out of the jurisdiction of a statement of claim : Brand 
 »• Green (1900), 13 M. L. R. 101.. 
 
 "Softer v. St. Lawrence Lumber Co., Ltd. (1896), 28 N. S. R. 335. 
 Phillips v. Canada Cork Co. (1905), 7 Que. P. R. 223. 
 f„ „ o i n tte case of the Exchequer Court, The R. and 0. Navigation 
 
 In ' S - Im verial (1908), 12 Ex. 243. 
 Brewster v. Canada Iron (1914), 7 O. W. N. 128. 
 
 B.c— 36 
 
562 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 
 
 Section 63 
 
 Limits to 
 exercise of 
 extra-terri- 
 torial juris- 
 diction. 
 
 Other 
 pertinent 
 sections of 
 The Bank- 
 ruptcy Act. 
 
 obtained from the Dominion Court in the province in 
 which the winding-up proceedings are being carried 
 on. If leave is not obtained the provincial- court will 
 stay the proceedings or dismiss the motion as the 
 case may be 4 . 
 
 Even under The Winding-up Act there were evi- 
 dences of a disposition to impose limits to the exercise 
 of extra-territorial jurisdiction. 
 
 Thus it was held that where in spite of an injunc- 
 tion issued by the court in Ontario a sheriff in 
 another province sold under an execution and exe- 
 cuted a deed to the purchaser, the Dominion Court 
 had no jurisdiction to make an order summarily declar- 
 ing the sale void 5 . In Henderson v. Canadian Pacific 
 Railway Co. e , the court was equally divided On the 
 question whether the court of another province seized 
 with winding-up proceedings had jurisdiction to attach 
 a debt payable outside that province to a person resi- 
 dent outside the province by a company having an 
 agent in the province. 
 
 In considering the scheme of The Bankruptcy Act 
 with respect to the administration of this Dominion 
 Statute in the various provinces the provisions of sec- 
 tions 71 and 72 should not be overlooked. These sec- 
 tions have been taken from the corresponding English 
 provisions which have to do with the enforcement in 
 Scotland and Ireland of orders of the English courts. 
 See also sections 4(4) (11), 6(4). 
 
 'Stewart v. Lepage (1916), 53 S. O. R. 337; Hobbs v. Kennabeek 
 Consolidated Silver Mine*. Ltd. (1918), 14 O. W. N. 358; Lavell V. 
 Canadian Mineral Rubber Co., supra; Blais v. Banker's Trust Gorpora- 
 tion, supra; Soucy v. La Compagnie d'Imprimerie Electrique (1902), 5 
 Q. P. R. 105; Marcotts v. Turcott (1901), 4 Q.P.R. 342; In re Mc- 
 Donnell (1871) , 15 L. C. J. 145 ; 3 Rev. Leg. 122. In Quebec it is neces- 
 sary to obtain the leave of the judge of the district in which the winding 
 up order has been made before suit can be brought in any other district 
 in Quebec: Plante v. Dalmas Pulp Co. (1914), 20 D. L. R. 983; of. 
 Robillard v. Blanche-t (1901), Q. R. 19 S. C. 383; and it has been said 
 by Hodgins, J.A., In re J. McCarthy & Sons Co. of Presoott, Ltd. 
 (1916), 38 O. L. R. 3; 32 D. L. R. 441, that after delegation of the 
 powers of the court to a local Master application should be made to him 
 for leave to bring an action. 
 
 "In re Tobique Gypsum Co., Costigan v. Langley (1903), 6 O. L. K. 
 515 
 
 ° (1916), 30 D. L. R. 62. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 563 
 
 C. Discretional Exercise of the Jurisdiction Conferred. Section 63 
 In considering whether the court* should exercise bankruptcy 
 the jurisdiction it possesses over "strangers" to the fr o m Vind- 
 bankruptcy the provisions of the Act and Rules should f™™* 
 be considered and contrasted with the provisions of the Acts. 
 Insolvent Acts and The Winding-up Act. Sections 
 
 6 (1) 7 and 13 A indicate certain of the considerations 
 which, should guide the court. 7 
 
 In contrasting the provisions of sections 6(1) and 
 
 7 and Rule 120 of The Bankruptcy Act with sections 
 18, 22, 23 and 133 of The Winding-up Act and with 
 section 125 of The Insolvent Act of 1875, two differ- 
 ences will be noticed : 
 
 {a) The Bankruptcy Act preserves the rights of 
 secured creditors 9 . 
 
 (b) In other respects and particularly by section 
 133 the provisions of The Winding-up Act are much 
 more drastic than those of The Bankruptcy Act 10 . 
 
 ' See in the case of a -voluntary winding up : In re Thurso New Gas 
 Co. (1889), 42 Ch. D. 486. 
 
 •Even under the Winding-up Act it was held that a mortgagee had 
 an absolute right to have leave to proceed with his action after the 
 making of a winding-up order, unless special circumstances made it 
 inequitable for him to do so : In re The Gushing Sulphite Fibre Co*, 
 Ltd. (1906) , 38 N. B. R. 581 ; or unless the insolvent or the court can 
 say we will without any further litigation give you all which you are 
 entitled to have. Per James, L.J., In re David Lloyd & Co. (1877), 6 
 Ch. D. 339 ; In re Longdendale Cotton Spinning Co. (1878) , 8 Oh. D. 
 150. Under the Winding-up Act it was not found convenient to attempt 
 to deal with mortgage actions when there were prior or subsequent 
 incumbrancers: Canada Cabinet Co. (1907), 9 O. W. R. 818. 
 "These sections . . enabling the court to interfere with actions, 
 were intended not for the purpose of harassing . . . third parties, 
 but for the purpose of preserving the limited assets of the company 
 . . . There being only a smaU fund to be divided among a great 
 number of persons it would be monstrous that one or more of them 
 should be harassing the company with actions. . . . But that has 
 really nothing to do with the case of a man . . . who J3 merely 
 seeking to enforce a claim not against the company, but to his own 
 property": per James, L,J.. In re David Lloyd & Co., supra. Section 
 87 of the Companies Act of 1862 (Emg.), was held not to apply to 
 rights of distress: In re Lundy Granite Co. (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 462. It 
 was held by Jessel, M.R., In re Trknsaran Coal. Iron and Steel Co. 
 (1876), 24 W. R. 900 that section 87 of the Companies Act, 1862, 
 which is analogous to section 7(2) of The Bankruptcy Act, only stayed 
 proceedings by persons capable of proving in the winding up ; that is to 
 say, by creditors of the company ; so that when the debtor as a sub- 
 tenant has goods on the property of the landlord they may be seized for 
 Ph n Dt ° £ the tenant: In re Regent United Service Stores (1878), 8 
 
 k 61 - 6 ' and see notes t0 section 52 - 
 This section was originaUy section 50 of the Insolvent Act of 
 
564 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 63 
 
 Exercise of 
 discretion. 
 
 Certain rules for the ; exercise of the court's discre- 
 tion are given in the notes to sections 6(1), 7. It has 
 been held under the various English Acts that, the court 
 ought to exercise its jurisdiction and dispose of the 
 matter when the bankruptcy forum is the most con- 
 venient and expeditious forum* or where- matters of 
 bankruptcy law 2 or the superior title of the trustee 
 are involved 3 . In view of the provisions of Eule 12'0 and 
 section 71(3) the Courts of Bankruptcy under our Act 
 will perhaps exercise their jurisdiction and either try 
 the matter in a summary way or give directions for 
 the trial of the matter in cases in which the English 
 courts might decline to exercise their jurisdiction. 
 Examples of such cases are actions by or- against 
 strangers involving the title of the trustee to property, 
 where the trustee claims by no higher title than the 
 debtor*. 
 
 then section 125 of the Insolvent Act of 1875. Anglin, J., said in 
 Stewart v. Lepage (1916), 53 S.' C. R. 337, 349: "No doubt some 
 inconvenience will be involved in such exceptional cases as this where 
 the winding-up of the company is conducted in a province of the 
 Dominion far distant from that in which persons interested as creditors 
 or claimants may reside. But Parliament probably thought it necessary 
 in the interests of prudent and enonomical winding-up that the court 
 charged with that duty should have/control not only of the assets and 
 property found in the hands or possession of the company in liquidation, 
 but also of all litigation in which it might be involved." 'See also 
 Archibald v. Haldan (1870), 30 U. O. Q. B. 36; Durable v. White 
 (1872), 32 U. C. Q. B. 601; GromUe v. Jackson (1874), 34 U. C. Q. B. 
 575; Burke v. McWhirter (1874), 35 U. C. Q. B. 1; Henderson v. Kerr 
 (1875), 22 Gr. 92; Cameron v. Kerr (1875), 23 Gr. 374; Munro v. 
 Commercial Building Society (1875), 36 TJ. C. Q. B. 465; In re Kennedy 
 (1S75) , 36 U. C. Q. B. 471 ; Jameson r. Kerr (1871) , 6 P. R. 3 ; Barclay 
 v. Sutton (1876), 7 P. R. 14; In re Essex Land and Timber Co, 21 
 O. R. 367 ; In re Toronto Wood and Shingle Co. (1894) , 30 C. L. T. 353 : 
 In re R. J. McCarthy & Sons (1916), 38 O. L. R. 3 ; 32 D. L. R. 441. 
 
 1 Morley v. White (1872), L. R. 8 Oh. 214. 
 
 2 See Smith v. Baker (1873), L. R. 8 C. P. 350; 42 L. J. C. P. 155; '" 
 In re and ex parte Anderson (1870), L. R. 5 Ch.' 473; 39 L. J. Bank. 
 49; cf. Ex parte Dickin, in re Pollard (1878), 8 Oh. D. 377; 48 L. J. 
 Bank. 36. 
 
 *Ex parte Brown in re Yates (1879), 11 Ch. D. 148; 48 L. J. 
 Bank. 78. 
 
 *Ex parte Hutchinson, in re Holt (1882), 47 I*. T. 483. See where 
 a stranger having notice of an application to the court for the exercise 
 of its jurisdiction made no move to oppose it : In re Sadler ex parte 
 Davis (1881), 19 Ch. D. 86; as to jurisdiction to order foreclosure see 
 In re Hart ex parte Fletcher (1878), 9 Ch. D. 381. See where the 
 property is claimed as against the trustee by a third! party who claims 
 to be a secured creditor: In re England ex parte Pannell (1877), 6 Ch. 
 D. 335 ; 47 L. J. Bank. 21. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 565 
 
 On the other hand it is probable that the court Section 63 
 will not exercise its discretion to stop a suit or pro- Refusal to 
 ceedings in another court where there are questions j„^jf£ tion . 
 raised which do not relate to the bankruptcy at all 5 , or 
 where there are conflicting claims to a part of the bank- 
 rupt's property between strangers to the bankruptcy 
 in which the trustee has no interest 6 . Nor is it likely 
 that the court will enforce a simple money demand 
 by the trustee against a third party which is capable 
 of being tried by the ordinary tribunals 7 . Other cases 
 in which the court in England has declined to exercise 
 its jurisdiction are where the title to real estate is in 
 question 8 or where difficult questions of law are 
 involved*. 
 
 An objection that the court has no jurisdiction Objections 
 whatever may be taken for the 1 first time on appeal, diction and 
 but this may affect the disposition of costs 10 . ,On the g°^g e of 
 other hand an objection that the court should not exer- the disere- 
 cise its discretionary jurisdiction ought to be taken at 
 the earliest moment." It is too late to take such an 
 objection after the objecting party has taken the chance 
 of a decision in his favour on the merits 1 . 
 
 It has been said that although the Winding-up Decisions in 
 Courts are Dominion Courts the courts of one province pro^L. 
 are not compelled by judicial comity to follow the pre- 
 vious decision of a court of a different province 2 . But 
 it is suggested with deference that in the administra- 
 tion and interpretation of a Dominion Statute, it is 
 fitting that a judge in one province should follow as 
 far as possible a previous judgment on the same point 
 
 "Ex parte Rumboll in re Rumboll and Taylor (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 
 842; 40 L. J. Bank. 82, at 849 ; cf. Ex parte Mills in re Manning (1871) , 
 UK 6 Ch. 594; 40 L. J. Bank. 89 ; In re Deere (1875), L. R. 10 Oh. 
 658. 
 
 °In re Lowentkal ex parte Beesty (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 238; 53 L. 
 J- Q. B. 524. 
 
 „ '*■ P<wfe Dickin in re Pollard (1878) , 8 Ch. D. 377 ; 48 L. J. Bank. 
 *; Ex parte Musgrave in re Wood (1878), 10 Ch. D. 94; 48 L. J. 
 iSank. 39; Ellis v. Siller (1872), L. R. 8 Ch. 83 ; 42 L. J. Oh. 666. 
 Ex parte Dickin in re Pollard, supra. 
 io^f parte DicMn >« re Pollard, supra. 
 Ex parte Eatough & Co., Ltd., m re Cliffe (1880), 42 L. T. 95. 
 Ex parte Swinbanks in re Shank/i (1879). 11 Ch. D. 525; 48 
 «* J .^ Bank. 120; Ex parte Butters in re Harrison (1880), 14 Oh. D. 265. 
 P T m o 6 Cert:t ral Bank ex parte Canada Shipping Co. (1888), 30 
 ^ u l. v 271, per Hodgins, M.O. 
 
566 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 64 in another province in order to create and perpetuate 
 — uniformity of decisions throughout Canada 3 . 
 
 -Courts not 
 subject to be 
 restrained. 
 
 Periodical 
 sittings. 
 
 Transaction 
 of bank- 
 ruptcy 
 business by 
 special 
 judge. 
 
 Sittings and Distribution of Business of Courts. 
 
 64 (1) The courts having jurisdiction in bank- 
 ruptcy under this Act shall not be subject to 
 be restrained in the execution of their 
 powers hereunder by the order of any other 
 court. 
 
 (2) Periodical sittings for the transaction of 
 the business of such courts shall be held at 
 such times and places and at such intervals 
 as each of such courts shall for itself pre- 
 scribe. 
 
 (3) Except as otherwise provided by this Act, 
 all the powers and jurisdiction in bank- 
 ruptcy and otherwise conferred by this Act 
 may and shall be exercised by or under the 
 direction of one of the judges of the court 
 upon which such powers and jurisdiction 
 are so conferred, and the Minister of Justice 
 shall from time to time assign a judge or 
 judges of such court for that purpose. The 
 judgment, decision or order of such judge 
 shall be deemed the judgment, decision or 
 order of the court, and references in this 
 Act to the court shall; where necessary, 
 apply to such judge exercising the powers 
 and. jurisdiction of such court. Provided 
 that during vacation or during the illness 
 of the judge so assigned or during his 
 absence, or for any other reasonable cause, 
 such powers and jurisdiction or any part 
 thereof may be exercised by or under the 
 direction of any judge of the court named 
 for that purpose by the Chief Justice 
 thereof. 
 
 "See per Macdonald, J., in In re Harrison (No. 3) (1919), 25 B. 
 C. R. 545, following a decision of Taschereau, J, in the Province of 
 Quebec. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 567 
 
 (4) The Chief Justice of each court upon which section 64 
 such powers and jurisdiction are so con- Registrar, 
 
 f erred shall from. time to time appoint and^e? s and 
 assign such registrars, clerks, and other 
 officers in bankruptcy as he deems necessary 
 or expedient for the transaction or disposal 
 of matters in respect of which power or 
 jurisdiction is given by this Act. 
 
 (5) Each Province of Canada shall constitute Bankruptcy 
 for the purposes of this Act, one bankruptcy ^^nl and 
 district, but the Governor-in-Council may 
 
 divide any such bankruptcy district into 
 two or more bankruptcy divisions, and name 
 or number them. A judge shall be assigned 
 to each of such divisions to exercise therein 
 the powers and jurisdiction conferred by 
 this Act on the court of which he is a 
 member. 
 
 (6) In case the Chief Justice of the court District or 
 having jurisdiction in bankruptcy in any Jj^^ udBe 
 Province shall report to the Minister of assigned to 
 Justice that it is impossible or highly incon- afvisfon. ej 
 venient for any judge of his court to under- 
 take to exercise within any bankruptcy divi- 
 sion in such Province the powers. and juris- 
 diction conferred on such court, the Minister 
 
 of Justice may, from time to time, assign to 
 exercise within said division said powers 
 and jurisdiction any district, county or 
 other judge, who shall for all the purposes 
 of this Act be deemed a judge of the court 
 having jurisdiction in bankruptcy, and refer- 
 ences in this Act to the court or to the judge 
 of the court shall, where necessary, apply to 
 such district, county or other judge, so 
 assigned. 
 
 Cross References Act: Jurisdiction, 63 ; court defined, 2(1) ; 
 enforcement of orders throughout Canada, 71(1) ; courts to be auxiliary 
 to one another, 71(2) ; trial of issue by any judge of the courts o-f the 
 province, 71(3); ef. 6(1), J; enforcement of warrants, 72, 73; review 
 ana appeal, 74. appeal courts, 63, 2(c) ; general rules, 66; "powers of 
 registrar, 65; definition of registrar, 2(ee) ; fees, 67; judge defined, 
 ■<(»); territorial limitation of jurisdiction of trustees, 14(2) ; locality 
 
568 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 64 of a debtor, 2(a;) ; jurisdiction in locality of a debtor, 4(4), of. 4(11) ; 
 transfer of proceedings to another district or division, 6(4). 
 
 Constitu- 
 tionality of 
 sections 
 63 and 64. 
 
 Courts not 
 
 Cross References Rules: Court defined, 2(1) ; judge defined 
 2(1) ; registrar defined, 2(1) ; alj matters to be heard in chambers, 4 
 jurisdiction of registrar, 5, 64 ;. adjournment from registrar to judge, 6 
 registrars may act for one another, 64 ; transfer of proceedings to another 
 court, 11; proceedings commenced in wrong court, 12; leave to 'proceed 
 under Winding Up Act, 13 ; sittings, 63 ; execution of orders, 65 ; 
 general practice under rules, 152 ; officers refusing to act, 66. 
 
 Analogous Legislation.: English Act, J.914, gs. 105(2), 96(5), 
 97 ; Winding Up Act, 1906, c. 144, ss. 109, 110. 
 
 Sections 63 and 64 have apparently been enacted on 
 the authority of Valin v. Langlois* and In re Vancini 5 , 
 which decided that the Dominion Parliament might 
 out of existing provincial courts create new courts, or 
 it might impose new duties on Provincial Courts, or 
 give them new powers as to matters which do not come 
 within the classes of subjects assigned exclusively to 
 the legislatures of the provinces. It may be doubted 
 whether some of the provisions of these sections do 
 not go somewhat beyond the facts on which these cases 
 were decided. 
 
 Section 64(1) provides that the courts of bank- 
 r i e^tr 6 afn*a be ruptcy are not to be subject to be restrained in the 
 execution of their powers by any other court. If 
 there is any irregularity in point of form in process 
 issued by the Court of Bankruptcy, or if the jurisdic- 
 tion has been wrongly exercised, the matter is to be 
 set right by proper proceedings in the court itself 6 . 
 
 On the consent of all parties a judge of the Supreme 
 Court of Ontario has dealt with a motion for an appli- 
 cation for an injunction in an action as an application 
 to a bankruptcy judge under section 39 7 . 
 Appointment As to what registrar or registrars have jurisdic- 
 of registrars. ^ on w h ere no appointment has been made, see Re X s . 
 
 * (1879) , 5 A. C. 115 ; 49 L. J. Pv C. 37. 
 
 " 1904, 34 S. C. R. 621, and see Attorney-General of Canada v. Sam, 
 Chak (1914), 44 N. S. R. 19. 
 
 8 Skinner v. Northallerton County Court Judge (1899) , A. C. 439 ; 68 
 h. J. Q. B. 896; 2 Mans. 274; In re New* Par Consols, Ltd. (1898), 1 
 Q. B. 669; Halliday v. Harris (1874), T,. R. 9 O. P. 668; 43 I/. J.: 
 C. P 350; per A. L. Smith, L.J., In re Farnham (1896), 1 Ch. 836, 843; 
 65 L. J. Ch. 456; 3 Mans. 123 ; and see notes to section 65. 
 
 ■•Imperial Bank v. Baroer (1921), 1 C. B. R. 485; 20 O. W. N. 
 282 (Middleton, J.) . 
 
 8 (1920), 19 O. W. N. 12; 1 C. B. R. 459 (Holmested. R.). 
 
 64(3). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 569 
 
 Powers of Registrar. 
 
 65 (1) The registrars of the several courts section 66 
 exercising bankruptcy jurisdiction under powers of 
 this Act shall have the powers and jurisdic- registrar - 
 tion in this section mentioned, and any 
 order made or act done by such registrars in 
 the exercise of the said powers and jurisdic- 
 tion shall be deemed the order or act of the 
 court. 
 
 (2) Subject to General Rules limiting the Particulars, 
 powers conferred by this section, a registrar 
 shall have power, — 
 
 (a) to hear bankruptcy petitions where 
 they are not opposed, and to make receiv- 
 ing orders and adjudications thereon, 
 where they are not opposed ; 
 (6) to hold examinations of debtors; 
 
 (c) to grant orders of discharge where the 
 application is not opposed ; 
 
 (d) to approve compositions, extensions or 
 schemes of arrangement where they are 
 not opposed ; 
 
 (e) to make interim orders in cases of 
 urgency ; 
 
 (/) to make any order or exercise any juris- 
 diction which by any rule in that behalf is 
 prescribed as proper to be made or exer- 
 cised in chambers ; 
 
 (g) to hear and determine any unopposed 
 or ex parte application ; 
 
 (h) to summon and examine any person 
 known or suspected to have in his posses- 
 sion effects of the debtor or to be indebted 
 to him, or capable of giving information 
 respecting the debtor, his dealings or pro- 
 perty; 
 
 (*) to hear and determine appeals from the 
 decision of a trustee allowing or disallow- 
 ing a creditor's claim where such claim 
 does not exceed five hundred dollars. 
 
570 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 63 
 
 Exception. 
 
 Appeal from 
 registrar. 
 
 (3) A registrar shall not have power to commit 
 for contempt of court. 
 
 (4) Any person dissatisfied with an order or 
 decision of the registrar may appeal there- 
 from to a judge, in manner prescribed by 
 General Rules. 
 
 Cross References Act: Registrar includes any other officer who 
 performs duties like to those of a registrar, 2(ee) ; appointment of regis- 
 trars, 64(4) ; courts exercising jurisdiction under the Act, 63; bankruptcy 
 petitions, receiving orders and adjudications, 4 ; examination of debtors, 
 56 ; Discharge of bankrupt or assignor, 58 ; compositions, extensions and 
 schemes, 13 ; examination of persons known or suspected to have effects 
 of debtor, 56 ; disallowance of claims t>y trustee, 53. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Registrar denned, 2(1) ; all matters 
 to be heard in chambers, 4 ; jurisdiction of registrar, 5 ; certain appli- 
 cations to be to judge in chambers, 120. 117, 119 ; adjournment from 
 registrar to judge, 6 ; appeals from registrar, 67 ; registrar refusing to 
 act, 66 ; application of trustee for discharge to be made to registrar, 
 107, 109. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. 102. 
 
 Jurisdiction Under the English practice certain matters must be 
 registrar. j iear( j m p en court 9 . There is no such rule, under The 
 Bankruptcy Act. The result is that by the combined 
 effect of section 65(2) (/) and Enle 4, the Eegistrar has 
 jurisdiction to deal with practically any matter 10 . Thus 
 he may deal with an application under section 71(2) 
 for an order directing persons within the jurisdiction 
 to hand over books and papers 11 , and he has jurisdic- 
 tion under rule 40 to order the production for the in- 
 spection of the trustee of all documents and papers 
 -relating to the estate of the debtor 1 . While he may not 
 commit for contempt of court 2 , he has power to give 
 leave for substituted service of a notice of motion'for 
 committal 3 . 
 
 Application should, it seems, in the first instance be 
 
 See English Rule 6. 
 
 10 See notes to Rules 4 and 5. See as to the question whether the 
 registrar can be given jurisdiction by the bankruptcy judge in matters 
 which that judge has power to dispose of in his capacity not as judge in 
 bankruptcy but &s one of the judges of the couit which hasi been given 
 bankruptcy jurisdiction: Re Wood ex parte Fanshawe (1897); 1 Q. B. 
 314 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 69 ; 3 Mans. 299. 
 
 11 In re Firbank ex parte Knight (1887), 4 Mor. 50. 
 1 In re Geiger (1913), 109 L. T. 224. 
 
 2 Section 65(3). 
 
 "Ex parte Board of Trade in re Galderwood (1890), 7 Mor. 251. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 571 
 
 made to the registrar in any matter in which he has Section 65 
 jurisdiction; for although the registrar may refer a Registrar 
 case to the judge if it is one of difficulty or novelty 4 , heg^ of 
 may not delegate his work to the judge 5 . Thus the matters over 
 registrar should hear and determine an application jurisdiction? 
 made ex parte for an injunction, even though the judge 
 in bankruptcy be. sitting 6 . But where a bankrupt's 
 application for his discharge raises issues of great / 
 
 importance and magnitude, this may be ground for an 
 application to have the question settled before the 
 judge and not before the registrar 7 . , It is no ground 
 for such an application that the registrar had been 
 concerned in the making of an order for the prosecu- 
 tion of the bankrupt for offences under the Act 8 . 
 
 Where the registrar makes an order he is the court Registrar is 
 that makes it and he alone is the court which can person who 
 review or rescind it 9 , and the same is true of orders wa - review 
 by the judge and semble, the Appeal Court 10 . No one of Ms own order 
 these courts can review, rescind or vary the order of "afion be by 
 the other unless a right of appeal is clearly given by^ ay e ^ 
 the statute 1 . The judge therefore can only review the 
 decision of the registrar on appeal from that decision 3 . 
 
 It was said in Re Macdonald, ex parte Grant 3 , that it General 
 was the duty of the registrar to assist the Court of r^stfar 
 Appeal by taking down in writing the material parts with respect 
 of the evidence given before him ; and that he ought to 
 be firm in resisting the putting of irrelevant questions. 
 
 Section 65(4) was first enacted by The Bankruptcy 
 Act Amendment Act 1920. 
 
 'Ex parte Foster in re Welster (1886), 3 Mor. 132. 
 
 ^ In re Firbank ex parte Knight, supra. 
 
 'In re Brooks (1886), 3 Mor. 62. 
 
 1 In re and ex parte Hooley (1899), 80 L. T. 495: 6 Mans. 176. 
 
 ! S. C. 
 
 "See section 74(1). 
 
 r. ■n° > £ e '' A - L ' Smith, J., In re and ex parte Maugham (1888). 21 
 U B. D. 21 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 487 ; 5 Mor. 152. 
 
 *S. C. and see In re and ex> parte Clifton (1890), 7 Mor. 59; Ex 
 noo«T strar ° f Vrwdon County Court in re Wise (1886), 17 Q. B. 
 U- 388; 55 X. J. Q. B. 362 ; 3 Mor. 174. 
 
 /iboU'IS ¥ aore ( 1885 >> 2 Mor. 78;- ef. Ex parte lewis in re Beard 
 
 I it' ■ T - E - 259; 10 Mor - 178 : ^ section 65 < 4 ) and Rule 67 
 
 'or tbe procedure in such case 
 
 '(1888), W.N. 130. 
 
572 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 66 
 
 General 
 Rules. 
 
 General Rules. 
 
 66 (1) The Grovernor-in-iCouncil may make, 
 alter or revoke, and may delegate to the 
 judges of the several courts exercising bank- 
 ruptcy jurisdiction under this Act the power 
 to make, alter or revoke, General Rules, not 
 inconsistent with the terms of this Act for 
 carrying into effect the objects thereof. 
 
 (2) Such rules shall not extend the jurisdiction 
 of the court, save and except that, for the 
 purpose of enabling the provision of rules 
 having application to corporations, but for 
 such purpose only, the Winding-up Act, 
 chapter 144 of the Revised Statutes of Can- 
 ada, shall be deemed part of this Act. 
 
 (3) All general rules, as from time to time 
 made, shall be laid before Parliament within 
 three weeks after made, or, if Parliament is 
 not then sitting, within three weeks after the 
 beginning of the next Session; Such rules 
 shall be judicially noticed, and shall have 
 effect as if enacted by this Act. 
 
 Cross References Act: Courts exercising jurisdiction under the 
 Act, 63; corporation defined, 2 (7c) ; Winding Up Act referred to, 2(o) ; 
 contributories, 36 ; general rules includes forms, 2 (r) . 
 
 Cross References Rules: Leave to proceed under Winding Up 
 Act, 13 ; rules in cases not provided for, 152. 
 
 Analogous Legislation : English Act, 1914, s. 132 ; Canadiai 
 Acts (1875), ss. 116, 122, 123; (1869), ss. 133, 139. 
 
 The Kules and Forms were promulgated by the 
 Governor-General in Council June 30, 1920, P.O. 1398 4 . 
 
 Qucere, whether a rule made in excess of the power 
 given by section 66(1) acquires the force of a statute 
 under section. 66(3) 5 . 
 
 It was held in England that a rule giving to the 
 Board of Trade a right of appeal in certain cases from 
 
 * See as to power to make and amend rules R. S. C. 1906, c. 1, ss. 
 12, 31 (g) ; 6 Ed. VII. c. 21, s. 2. 
 
 c In re Hartn ex parte Foreman (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 393; 56 L. J. 
 Q. B. 161; 4 Mor. 16; In re and ex parte Dale (1885), 21 Mor. 92; 33 
 W. R. 476 ; 52 L. T. 627 ; of. Institute of Patent Agents and Others v. 
 Lockwood (1894), A. C. 347. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 573 
 
 an order of discharge was a rule for carrying into section 67 
 effect the objects of the Act 6 . The rules may, without ~~ 
 extending the jurisdiction of the court or infringing 
 section 66(2), impose on the debtor obligations with 
 respect to an application for discharge other than 
 those contained in the Act 7 . 
 
 Certain of the rules are directory. They should be 
 complied with by the registrar, but non-compliance 
 does not make subsequent proceedings bad . 
 
 Fees and Returns. 
 
 67. All attorneys, solicitors and counsel acting Tariff of 
 for the trustee or for the estate of a debtor ^ and 
 in respect of proceedings under this Act, 
 shall be paid out of the assets of such estate 
 their reasonable costs and fees as fixed in a 
 tariff provided by General Rules; but, 
 except as hereinafter provided, the aggre- 
 gate amount of such costs and fees so pay- 
 able out of the assets of estates whereof the 
 gross proceeds exceed five thousand dollars 
 shall not exceed five per centum of such 
 gross proceeds. This provision shall not dis- 
 entitle such attorneys, solicitors and counsel 
 to any costs or fees which may be awarded 
 against or be payable by persons other than 
 the trustee or the estate of the debtor, and 
 notwithstanding anything in this Act con- 
 tained, in estates whereof the gross proceeds 
 do not exceed five thousand dollars, the 
 costs or fees payable may, by unanimous 
 vote of the inspectors, be increased to any 
 amount not to exceed ten per centum of the 
 gross proceeds of such estate. Such tariff 
 
 8 In re Stainton ex parte Board of Trade (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 182 ; 
 4 Mor. 242, and see In re and ex parte Dale (1885), 2 Mor. 92; 33 
 W. R. 476 ; 52 L. T. 627 ; Ex parte Edwards in re Howe (1885) , 54 L. 
 ■»• Q. B. 447 ; 2 Mor. 203. 
 
 'In re Spratley (1909), 1 K. B. 559; 78 L. J. K. B. 390; 16 
 Mans. 91. 
 
 'In re and ex parte Hunt (1872), L. R. 8 Oh. 234; 28 L. T. 3 ; 
 E* parte DeBoos in re Shallow (1879), 40 L. T. 659. 
 
574 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 67 
 
 Lower scale 
 of costs in 
 Rule 57 (2). 
 
 Separate 
 authoriza- 
 tions not to 
 be exceeded. 
 
 shall also fix the fees to be paid to the officers 
 of the court and shall direct by whom and in 
 what manner such costs and fees are to be 
 collected and accounted for and to what 
 account they shall be paid. 
 
 Cross References Act: Power of trustee to bring, institute or 
 defend an action, 20(1) (c) ; power to employ a solicitor or other agent, 
 20(1) (d) ; fees and expenses of the trustee, 51(1) ; costs of administra- 
 tion, 51(2) ; remuneration and disbursements of trustee, 40, 15(5) ; 
 barristers, solicitors or advocates in any province may practice in 
 others, 87. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Tariff of costs, 57(1) ; scale of solici- 
 tor's costs when the estimated assets of the debtor do not exceed fifteen 
 hundred dollars, 57(2) ; costs out of joint and separate estates, 60; 
 costs payable out of the estate, 61 ; fees, 62 ; costs and taxation gener- 
 ally, 54-61 ; proceedings, 7-13. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Part II. Tariff of costs. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, Rule 103. 
 
 Section 67 is given in the form in which it stands- 
 in consequence of the amendment contained in section 
 59 of The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921. 
 
 The lower scale provided by rule 57(2') does not 
 apply to costs taxable by third parties against the 
 estate such as persons with whom the trustee has had 
 unsuccessful litigation 10 , nor does it appear to apply 
 to matters which are not "proceedings under the Act" 
 such as conveyancing business 1 , or proceedings on 
 behalf of the estate in other courts' 5 . But the words 
 "proceedings under the Act "include in England for 
 the taxation of costs incurred for the trustee, the costs 
 of a trustee's application to disclaim leaseholds 3 , or 
 proceedings instituted by him with respect to an 
 alleged fraudulent preference 4 . 
 
 Where a solicitor is employed by a trustee with the 
 consent in writing of the inspectors 5 to transact sep'a- 
 
 10 In re Dowson ex parte Jaynes (1887), 5 Mor. 240; such a person 
 will get full costs ; but senible the result of the cases in England is 
 anomalous, for the trustee in such litigation will get full costs if he 
 succeeds but if he loses he can only charge the estate with three-fifths: 
 In re Marsh ex parte Board of Trade (1894), 1 Mans. 486; {Tn ri 
 Proctor (1891), 2 Q. B. 433; 8 Mor. 348. 
 
 1 In re Parfitt ex parte Board of Trade (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 40; 58 
 L. J. Q. B. 428 ; 6 Mor. 166. 
 
 'In re Weighell (1909), 1 K. B. 92; 78 L. J. K. B. 86; 15 Mans. 
 335. 
 
 3 In re Proctor (1891), 2 Q. B. 433 ; 8 Mor. 348. 
 
 'In re Marsh ex parte Board of Trade (1894), 1 Mans. 486. See 
 further as to "proceedings" Rules 7-13, sec. 68(2). 
 
 "See section 20(1) (d). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 575 
 
 rate matters of business, and in each case the amount of section 68 
 costs to be incurred is limited, the solicitor should not 
 lump his charges against the total of the sums author- 
 ized, but should bring in his bills for taxation showing 
 that in no case have the amounts authorized been 
 exceeded. If this is not done the debtor after his dis- 
 charge may have the taxation re-opened 6 . 
 
 Procedure. 
 
 68 (1) All proceedings in bankruptcy or under Title of 
 authorized assignments subsequent to- the papers- 
 presentation of a bankruptcy petition or 
 the making of an authorized assignment 
 shall be entitled "In the matter of the Bank- 
 ruptcy" of the debtor, or "In the matter of 
 the Authorized Assignment" of the debtor, 
 as the case may be. 
 
 (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and Costs, 
 to General Rules, the costs of and incidental 
 
 to any proceeding in court under this Act 
 shall be in the discretion of the court. 
 
 (3) The court may at any time adjourn any Adjoum- 
 proceedings before it upon such terms, if ment ' 
 any, as it may think fit to impose. 
 
 (4) The court may at any time amend any Amendment, 
 written process or proceedings under this 
 
 Act upon such terms, if any, as it may 
 think fit to impose. 
 
 (5) Where by this Act, or by General Rules, Extension 
 the time for doing any act or thing is limited, of time - 
 the court may extend the time either before 
 
 or after the expiration thereof, upon such 
 terms, if any, as the court may think fit to 
 impose. 
 
 (6) Subject to General Rules, the court may Evidence, 
 in any matter take the whole or any part of 
 
 the evidence either viva voce, or by interro- 
 gatories, or upon affidavit, or, out of the 
 Dominion of Canada, by commission. 
 
 'In re Yeatman (1916), 1 K. B. 780; 85 L. J. K. B. 789; 2 H. B. 
 E 30. 
 
,576 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 68 
 
 Consolida- 
 tion of 
 petitions. 
 
 Power to 
 change 
 carriage of 
 proceedings. 
 
 Continuance 
 of proceed- 
 ings on death 
 of debtor. 
 
 Stay of 
 proceedings. 
 
 (7) Where two or more bankruptcy petitions 
 are presented against the same debtor or 
 against joint debtors, the court may con- 
 solidate the proceedings, or any of them, on 
 such terms as the court thinks fit. 
 
 (8) Where the petitioner does not proceed with 
 due diligence on his bankruptcy petition, 
 the court may substitute as petitioner any 
 other creditor to whom the debtor may be 
 indebted in the amount required by this Act 
 in the case of the petitioning creditor, or 
 may dismiss the petition. 
 
 (9) If a debtor by or against whom a bank- 
 ruptcy petition has been presented dies, the 
 proceedings in the matter shall, unless the 
 court otherwise orders, be continued as if 
 he were alive. 
 
 (10) The court may at any time, for sufficient 
 reason, make an order staying the proceed- 
 ings under a bankruptcy petition, either 
 altogether or for a limited time, on such 
 terms and subject to such conditions as the 
 court may think just. 
 
 Cross References Act: No advantage to be gained by any mistake, 
 defect or imperfection, 12 ; proceedings" not to 'be invalidated by formal 
 defects, 84 ; costs and fees of attorneys, solicitors and counsel, 67 ; 
 actions in official name of trustee, 16 ; computation of time, 82 ; 
 property of partners vested in same trustee, 69(3) ; extension of time 
 for statement of affairs, 54(1) ; staying proceedings' on petition, 
 4(7) (8) ; receiving order on another petition, 4(8) ; style of cause in 
 certain composition proceedings, 13 (3e). 
 
 Cross References Rules: Adjournment of proceedings before 
 judge, 6 ; computation of time, 148-151 ; costs of witnesses in discretion 
 of court, 36 ; conduct money, 42 ; awarding of costs, 54 ; costs of peti- 
 tion, 55 ; taxation of costs', 56 ; tariff of costs, 57 ; costs out of joint and 
 separate estates, 60 ; costs payable out of estate, 61 ; fees, 62 ; costs of 
 application to approve composition, etc., 102 ; non-compliance with rules 
 not to render proceeding void, 146 ; witnesses and depositions, 34 to 42 ; 
 rules relating to petition, 74 et seq. 
 
 Cross References Forms: 
 
 scale of fees. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: 
 
 1883, ss. 105-109. 
 
 Part II.. tariff of costs; Part III., 
 
 English Acts, 1914, ss. 97(3), 109-113; 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 577 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Section 68(2) costs. Section 68 
 
 " Proceeding in court." 
 
 Section 68(3) adjournment. 
 
 Section 68(4) amendment. 
 
 Section 68(5) extension of time. 
 
 Section 68(6) evidence. 
 
 Section 68(7") consolidation. 
 
 Section 68(8) substitution of petitioner. 
 
 Section 68(9) continuance of proceedings on death of debtor. 
 
 Where a trustee makes an application to the court Sec. 68(2) 
 not in discharge of any statutory duty, but in exercise coste " 
 of his powers under the Act and the application is dis- 
 missed, the court will order him to pay the costs, but 
 may in a proper case give him indemnity out of the 
 estate 7 . 
 
 The court will not necessarily order the trustee to 
 pay the costs of a person into whose possession pro- 
 perty of the bankrupt has come even though that per- 
 son may be innocent of wrong doing 8 . Nor where no 
 special circumstances exist will the court approve a 
 consent order whereby the trustee agrees to pay the 
 costs of the other party as between solicitor and 
 client . 
 
 Qucere, whether the court has jurisdiction to order 
 a debtor to pay part of the petitioning creditor's costs 
 of an unsuccessful petition 10 . 
 
 The examination of a debtor is a proceeding in<'p roceeding 
 court within the meaning of section 68(2) and the court 111 court " 
 under the English practice may order the costs of the 
 petitioning creditor in connection therewith to be paid 
 out of the estate 1 A meeting of creditors called after 
 the first meeting, the object of the meeting being to dis- 
 cuss the confirmation of a scheme of arrangement of 
 the debtor's affairs previously submitted to the first 
 
 '/» re Williams ex parte O. R. (1913), 1 K. B. 88. See Rule 
 
 54(3). 
 
 'In re Bates ex parte Hobbs (1892), 9 Mor. 25. 
 °In re (hiy em parte Scantlebury (1887), 4 Mor. 300. 
 "In re a Debtor (1910), 1 K. B. 313; 79 L. J. K. B. 263; 17 
 Mans. 6. 
 
 '& parte Board of Trade in re Strand (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 492; 
 ™ L - J- Q. B. 563 ; 1 Mor. 196. See further as to " proceedings " Rules 
 '■13, sec. 67. 
 
 B.C.— 37 
 
57& 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. _ 
 
 Section 68 
 
 Sec. 68(3) 
 adjournment. 
 
 Sec. 68(4) 
 amendment. 
 
 Sec. 68 (5) 
 extension of 
 time. 
 
 meeting, is not a "proceeding in court"; for the func- 
 tions of the court are for the time being in abeyance, 
 and its jurisdiction is not revived until the scheme is 
 submitted to the court for approval 2 . 
 
 The power of adjournment given by this section 
 applies to cases of adjudication under section 4 s . 
 
 Under the English section corresponding with 68(4) 
 leave has been given to amend a petition which had 
 been presented by a bare trustee, by joining the 
 cestui que trust even though three months had elapsed 
 since the petition was presented* ; and to amend a part- 
 nership petition by adding the trustee of an insolvent 
 partner 5 ; and to amend a receiving order against a 
 partnership by excluding from its operation an infant 
 partner ; and to amend a receiving order by striking 
 out all reference to an alleged act of bankruptcy involv- 
 ing third parties who had no opportunity of being 
 heard 7 ; but the court has refused to amend a bank- 
 ruptcy petition by adding as petitioners, after three 
 months have elapsed from the date of the act of bank- 
 ruptcy upon which the petition was founded, creditors 
 whose debts are other than those in respect of which 
 the petition was presented 8 . 
 
 Under the English section corresponding with sec- 
 tion 68(5) the court has jurisdiction to extend the time 
 within which the trustee must elect whether he will 
 disclaim premises occupied by the debtor, but some 
 
 2 Ex parte Board of Trade in re Strand, supra. 
 
 3 In re Lord Thurlow ex parte 0. R. (1895), 1 Q. B. 724; 64 L. J. 
 Q. B. 479; 2 Mans. 158; cf. In re a Debtor ex parte 0. R. (1901), 84 
 Xj. T. 666. The court possesses a wide judicial discretion in granting 
 adjournments of the hearing of a petition: In re Debtor ex parte 
 Creditor (1920), B. & C.-K. 1. 
 
 *Mw parte Dearie in re Hastings (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 184; 54 
 L. J. Q. B 74; 1 Mor. 281; In re Ellis ex parte Hinshehvood (1887), 
 4 Mor. 283. In these cases leave was given by the court of appeal, the 
 appellant being ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and the costs of 
 the amendment. 
 
 °In re and ex parte Qwen (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 113; 53 L. J. Q. B, 
 863 ; 1 Mor. 93. 
 
 "Lovell and Christmas v. Beauchamp tl894), A. C. 607; 63 L. J. 
 Q. B. 802 ; 1 Mans. 467. 
 
 ' In re a Debtor ex parte a Person aggrieved (1912), 106 L. T. 344. 
 
 "In re and ex parte Maund (1895), 1 Q. B. 194; 64 L. J. Q. B. 
 183. See as to the power to add or substitute petitioners: Re Thomas 
 (1921), 1 C. B. R. 473; 20 O. W. N. 180 (Orde, J.). See notes to sec. 
 68(8). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 579 
 
 good reason should be adduced by the trustee on such Section 68 
 an application ; and if the rights of other parties will — 
 be prejudiced by the time being extended, the court will 
 as a general rule put the trustee on terms 10 . 
 
 An order giving leave to enter an appeal is not the 
 same thing as an order extending the time for notice 
 of appeal 1 . 
 
 See as to extension of time for compliance with a 
 bankruptcy notice In re G. E. B. 2 
 
 In England in the High Court 3 unless the parties s e er 68 (6) 
 agree 4 that evidence on a motion shall be taken viva evidence - 
 voce, and not by affidavit, leave to use viva voce evi- 
 dence must be obtained on a separate application made 
 before the motion comes on to be heard ; and before all 
 the expense of affidavit evidence has been incurred 5 . 
 The application should be made to the judge and not 
 to the registrar in a case which is to be heard before 
 the judge 6 . Where parties agree that the evidence 
 shah be viva voce, written notice is given to the clerk 
 of the court who enters the motion on a special list to 
 be heard with viva voce evidence. Application is then 
 made to the court to fix a day for the hearing of the 
 motion 7 . 
 
 Whoever calls the debtor as a witness on an appli- 
 cation may cross-examine him as to what account he 
 has given of a matter on a previous occasion 8 . 
 
 Where a member of a partnership dies insolvent sec. 68(7) 
 and an order is made for the administration of his £f ( ^ olida " 
 
 10 In re Price eas parte Foreman (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 466 ; 1 Mor. 
 153. 
 
 'In re Phillips ex parte Trustee (1895), 2 Mans. 206. 
 
 * (1903), 2 K. B. 340 ; 10 Mans. 243 ; Brook v. Emerson (1906) , 95 
 L. X. 821. 
 
 * The rule does not apply to county courts ; In re Wilson ex parte 
 Wathinson (1887), 4 Mor. 238; 57 L. T. 201; 35 W. R. 668. 
 
 'In re VnderhUl (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 115; 3 Mor. 282; Practice 
 note in 6 Mans. 287. 
 
 'Ex parte Kearsley in re Genese (1886). 17 Q. B. D. 1 ; 55 L. J. 
 Q- B. 225; 3 Mor. 57. Where an affidavit has been filed verifying the 
 debt and the hearing has been adjourned the registrar should, when the 
 matter comes on again for hearing, permit the petitioner to give oral 
 evidence of the continuance of the debt : In re Staples ex parte Smith & 
 Sons (1894), 42 W. R. 448. 
 
 ' In re Bagan & Co. ex parte Adam son (1886), 3 Mor. 117. 
 In re VnderhUl (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 115 ; 3 Mor. 282. 
 In re Cunningham ex parte 0. R. (1899), 6 Mans. 199; 80 L. T. 
 503; /„ re Osborne ex parte Lovell (1895), 43 Sol. J. 480. 
 
580 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 69 estate in bankruptcy 9 , and- afterwards the surviving 
 partner becomes bankrupt the court may, it seems, 
 direct the proceedings in the two estates to be con- 
 solidated 10 , 
 sec 68(8) After the dismissal of a petition on the ground that 
 
 of pttiwk the petitioning creditor had assented to the deed of 
 assignment which was the act of bankruptcy alleged, 
 the court will not, if the original act of bankruptcy is 
 no longer available to found a petition, substitute an- 
 other creditor in place of the petitioning creditor 1 . 
 Sec. 68(9) If a debtor dies after a petition has been presented 
 
 o? proceed- 6 against him 2 , the representatives are at liberty to try 
 o? debtor eath ^ make arrangements with the creditors if they so 
 wish, and if they do so the court will no doubt consider 
 that it ought to ' ' otherwise order. ' ' 3 ; but if the debtor 
 dies before service of the petition on him the proceed- 
 ings must be stayed; for there can be no substituted 
 service in such case*. See as to the rights in England 
 of secured creditors where the debtor made a composi- 
 tion with his creditors and then died, In re Hardy*. 
 
 Power to 69 (1) Any creditor whose debt is sufficient to 
 
 petftlon entitle him to present a bankruptcy petition 
 
 partner. 0116 against all the partners of a firm may pre- 
 
 sent a petition against any one or more 
 partners of the firm, without including the 
 others. 
 Power to (2) Where there are more respondents than 
 
 •petition one to a bankruptcy petition the court may 
 
 rlspondents 6 dismiss the petition as to one or more of 
 
 only. them, without prejudice to the effect of the 
 
 See English Act, 1914, s. 130. 
 
 10 In re Greaves ex parte O. R. (1904), 2 K. B. 493; 73 L. J. K. B. 
 075 ; 11 Mans. 270. 
 
 1 In re and ex parte Maugham (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 21; 57 L. J. 
 Q. B. 487 ; 5 Mor. 152. See notes to sec. 68(4). 
 
 2 The words " iby or " in the first line of section 68(9) are surplusage. 
 They refer to the English practice Tinder which a debtor may himself 
 present a petition in bankruptcy. 
 
 "In re Walker ex parte Sharp (1886), 3 Mor. 69; 54 L. T. 682;. 
 34 W. R. 550. 
 
 "7ra re Easy ex* parte Hill (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 538; 56 L. J. Q. B. 
 624 ; 4 Mor. 281 ; and see section 130 of the English Act of 1914. 
 
 5 (1896) , 1 Ch. 904 ; 65 L. J. Ob. 461 ; 3 Mans. 150. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 581 
 
 petition as against the other or others of section 69 
 them. 
 (3) "Where a receiving order has been made on Property of 
 a bankruptcy petition by or against one t^vSnk 
 member of a partnership, any other bank- same tru stee. 
 ruptcy petition by or against a member of 
 the same partnership shall be filed in or 
 transferred to the court in which the first- 
 mentioned petition is in course of prosecu- 
 tion, and unless the court otherwise directs, 
 the same trustee shall be appointed as may 
 have been appointed in respect of the pro- 
 perty of the first mentioned member of the 
 partnership, and the court may give such 
 directions for consolidating the proceedings 
 under the petitions as it thinks just. 
 
 Cross References Act: Petitioning creditor's debt, 4(3) (a) ; 
 consolidation of proceedings where two or more petitions' against the 
 same debtor or joint debtors, 68(7) ; limited partnerships, 76; adminis- 
 tration in joint and separate estates, 51(3). 
 
 Cross References Rules: Service on firm or person carrying on 
 business under style other than his own, 80, 81 ; effect of receiving order 
 against a firm, 94 ; liability of limited partners, 95. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts (1914), ss. 114-116; 
 (1883), ss. 110-112; (1869), ss. 100-102; (1849), ss. 97, 98. 
 
 Analysis of Notes. 
 
 Petition against firm. 
 
 Transfer of proceedings. 
 
 Consolidation of proceedings. 
 
 No consolidation in case of assignments. 
 
 Consolidation -of joint and separate estates. 
 
 To support a petition against a firm, each of the Petition 
 partners must have committed or concurred in an act Agaillstfirm - 
 of bankruptcy 6 . 
 
 The application for transfer should be made to the Transfer of 
 registrar of the court in which the second petition has proceedings - 
 been filed 7 . 
 
 "Eogg-v. Bridges (1818), 8 Taunt. 200 ; Bowker v. Burdekin (1843) , 
 11 M. & W. 128; 12 L. J. Ex. 329 ; Mills v. Bennett (1814), 2 M. & S. 
 o56; Ex parte Mavor (1815), 19 Ves. 538, 542; In re, and ex parte 
 Clark (1832). 1 Dea & C. 544. 
 
 „ \ ln . re mi ea » varte Nicholson (1886), 3 Mor. 46. The words " by 
 or 'in lines two and three of section 69(3) are surplusage. They refer 
 to the English practice under which a debtor may himself present a 
 Petition in bankruptcy. 
 
582 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 70 
 
 Consolida- 
 tion of 
 proceedings. 
 
 No consoli- 
 dation, in 
 case of 
 assignments. 
 
 Consolida- 
 tion of joint 
 and separate 
 estates. 
 
 Sections 68(7) and 69(3) give jurisdiction to con- 
 solidate proceedings in different cases ; but apart from 
 these sections there is jurisdiction, at least in England, 
 to consolidate in cases not mentioned in those sections 8 . 
 Under the English section corresponding with section 
 69(3), the court has ordered the consolidation of pro- 
 ceedings in the bankruptcies of two partners who had 
 dissolved partnership before the petitions were filed; 
 but who still had joint assets and joint liabilities 8 . 
 
 Semble a consolidation may be ordered under this 
 section where a creditor has obtained an adjudication 
 against joint debtors and a previous petition had been 
 presented by him against one of the debtors sepa- 
 rately 10 . The bankrupt has no locus standi to oppose 
 a motion for such, consolidation 1 . 
 
 Section 69(3) makes no provision for the consoli- 
 dation of administration where there have been assign- 
 ments by two or more members of the same partner- 
 ship. Possibly section 63(1) is extensive enough to 
 convey jurisdiction in this respect. 
 
 Section 69(3) refers to the consolidation of proceed- 
 ings where there are petitions against two partners. 
 Consolidation of proceedings in the case of the joint 
 and separate estate of one partner falls under section 
 51(3). 
 
 Actions by 
 trustee and 
 bankrupt's 
 partner. 
 
 70 (1) Where a member of a partnership is 
 adjudged bankrupt, the court may authorize 
 the trustee to commence and prosecute any 
 action in the names of the trustee and of the 
 bankrupt's partner ; and any release by such 
 partner of the debt or demand to which the 
 action relates shall be void; but notice of 
 the application for authority to commence 
 
 8 Per Vaughan Williams, L.J., in Ex parte 0. R. in re Abbott 
 (1894) , 1 Q. B. 442 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 253 ; 10 Mar,. 306. 
 
 Ex parte 0. R. in re Abbott,- supra. 
 
 10 Ex parte Mackenzie in re Helliwett (1872), L. R. 20 Eq. 758; 
 44 L. J. Bank. 117. In this case which was under section 102 of the 
 Act of 1869 the separate petition was consolidated with the joint petition; 
 Contrast Ex parte Green in re Dales (1858), 27 L. J. Bank. 32; 3 DeG. 
 & J. 50 ; Ex parte Raines (1858) , 27 L. J. Bank. 33 ; 3 DeG. & J. 58. 
 
 1 Ex parte Mackenzie in re Helliwett, supra. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. * 583 
 
 the action shall be given to him, and he may section 70 
 show cause against it, and on his applica- 
 tion, the court may, if it thinks fit, direct 
 that he shall receive his proper share of the 
 proceeds of the action, and, if he does not 
 claim any benefit therefrom, he shall be in- 
 demnified against costs in respect thereof as 
 the court directs. 
 
 (2) Any two or more' persons, being partners, Actions in 
 or any person carrying on business under a ^™ € o£ 
 partnership name, may take proceedings or 
 
 be proceeded against under this Act in the 
 name of the firm, but in such case the court 
 may, on application by any person inter- 
 ested, order the names of the persons who 
 are partners in such firm or the name of such 
 person to be disclosed in such manner, and 
 verified on oath or otherwise, as the court 
 may direct. 
 
 (3) Where a bankrupt or authorized assignor Action on 
 is a contractor in respect of any contract c °™tracts. 
 jointly with any person or persons, such 
 person or persons may sue or be sued in 
 respect of the contract without the joinder 
 
 of the bankrupt or authorized assignor. 
 
 Cross References Act: Firm may act by any of its members, 85 ; 
 limited partnerships, 76; authorized assignor defined, 2(g). 
 
 Cross References Rules: Effect of receiving order against 
 firm, 94; liability of limited partners, 95. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts, 1914, ss. 117, 119, 118; 
 1883, ss. 113, 115, 114 ; 1869, s. 112. 
 
 The true meaning of section 70(2) is that if persons 
 have been partners in a business then bankruptcy pro- 
 ceedings can be taken against them in the partnership 
 name ; and this right is not to be cut down either by the 
 secret dissolution of the partnership or by Eule 94, 
 which is an enabling rule 2 . 
 
 The words "being partners" in section 70(2') are 
 intended to mean "who have carried on business in 
 
 ano ' Per Alvei ' st °ne, M.R., in Wenham v. Battams (1900), 2 Q. B. 
 W8; 69 L. J. Q. B. 803 ; 7 Mans. 309, at 705. See, however, per Collins, 
 L -J., S.C., at 709. 
 
584 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.' 
 
 Section 7i partnership for the purpose of- the liability which is 
 sought to be enforced ' ". 
 
 Where two partners suing as a firm obtain judg- 
 ment against a debtor and then dissolve partnership, 
 the petition is correct in form if it purports to be pre- 
 sented by the two late partners in respect of the joint 
 debt and is signed by one of the partners on behalf of 
 bimself and the other*. 
 
 Enforcement 
 of orders of 
 courts 
 throughout 
 Canada. 
 
 Courts to be 
 auxiliary to 
 each other. 
 
 Trial of 
 issue, etc. 
 
 71 (1) Any order made by a court exercising 
 jurisdiction in bankruptcy under this Act 
 in any province of Canada shall be enforced 
 in the courts having jurisdiction in bank- 
 ruptcy in all other provinces of Canada in 
 the same manner in all respects as if the 
 order had been made by the court hereby 
 required to enforce it. 
 
 (2) All courts having jurisdiction in bank- 
 ruptcy in all provinces of Canada and the 
 officers of such courts respectively shall 
 severally act in aid of and be auxiliary to 
 each other in all matters of bankruptcy and 
 in proceedings under authorized assign- 
 ments, and an order of the court seeking aid, 
 with a request to another of the said courts, 
 shall be deemed sufficient to enable the latter 
 court to exercise, in regard to the matters 
 directed by the order, such jurisdiction as 
 either the court which made the request or 
 the court to which the request is made could 
 exercise in regard to similar matters within 
 their respective jurisdictions. 
 
 (3) The court may direct any issue to be tried 
 or inquiry to be made by any judge or officer 
 of any of the courts of the province, and the 
 decision of such judge or officer shall be sub- 
 ject to appeal to a judge in bankruptcy, 
 unless the judge is a judge of a superior 
 
 3 Per Alverstone, M.R., in Wenham v. Battams, supra, at 705. 
 
 4 In re and ex parte HoUs (1892), 66 L. T. 144. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 585 
 
 court, when the appeal shall be under section section 71 
 seventy-four of this Act. Appeal. 
 
 Cross References Act: Courts of bankruptcy, 63 ; review and 
 appeal, 74; transfer of proceedings from one court to another, 11(4). 
 
 Cross References Rules: Orders of court to be enforced as if a 
 judgment, 53; directions for trial of a question or issue, 120; proceed- 
 ings after trial of disputed question, 90. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Order of transfer of proceedings, 16. 
 
 Analogous Legislation : English Acts, 1914, ss. 121, 122 ; cf. 
 105(3) (4) ; 1883. ss. 117, 118, 102 ; (1869), ss. 73, 74 ; Winding Vp Act 
 (1906), ss. 127, 125, 110. 
 
 Section 71(3) was first enacted by The Bankruptcy 
 Act Amendment Act 1920. 
 
 Section 122 of the English Act of 1914 should be 
 read with section 71. 
 
 That section reads : 
 
 122. The High Court, the county courts, the courts having jur- 
 isdiction in bankruptcy in Scotland and Ireland, and every British 
 Court elsewhere having jurisdiction in bankruptcy or insolvency, 
 and the officers of those courts respectively shall severally act in 
 aid of and be auxiliary to each other in all matters of bankruptcy, 
 and an order of the court seeking aid, with a request to another of 
 the said courts, shall be deemed sufficient to enable the latter court 
 to exercise, in regard to the matters directed by the order, such 
 jurisdiction as either the court which made the request, or the 
 court to which the request is made, could exercise in regard to sim- 
 ilar matters within their respective jurisdictions. 
 
 It has been held in England that as between Eng- whether 
 land and Scotland, section 117 of the English Act of %£$£ J 1(1) 
 1883, which is analogous to section 71(1) above,' affects procedure 
 procedure only. In that particular case it was said° ny- 
 that the Scottish law with respect to relation back 
 could not be invoked in England, so as to deprive a 
 creditor of the fruits of his diligence in England 5 , for 
 once a garnishee order or a receiver has been obtained 
 in England the debtor himself could not have assigned 
 the property 6 . 
 
 The procedure to be followed in enforcing an order procedure 
 of another court in proceedings under The Winding-up y$£°[ in , u 
 Att is indicated in that statute 7 . The practice in Acts. 
 
 'Qalbraith v. Grimshaw (1910), A. C. 508; 79 L. J. K. B. 1011; 
 17 Mans. 183. 
 
 'Singer & Co. v. Fry (1915), 2 H. B. B. 115. 
 See section 126. 
 
586 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 7i Ontario in making orders rules of Court is to take the 
 order properly evidenced to the central office, the 
 judgment branch, where it is entered in the proper 
 books as a judgment or order 8 . In New Brunswick 
 the order is filed with the registrar and may then 
 without any formal order be entered by him as a judg- 
 ment 9 . The practice in Ireland under the similar sec- 
 tion of The English Companies Act is that a formal 
 order of the Irish Court is not necessary to make an 
 English order an order of the Irish Court 10 . 
 Jurisdiction -There- is no jurisdiction under section 71(2) for a 
 under 71 (2). bankruptcy court properly seized of a matter to require 
 another court to do its ordinary work 11 . 
 
 Under section 117 of the Act of 1883, the English 
 court has made an order for the arrest of a bankrupt 
 against whom the Scotch court had issued a warrant 
 of arrest 1 . 
 
 See as to the enforcement of an order for costs, 
 Re Bell 2 . 
 Only courts Courts which have no bankruptcy jurisdiction can 
 mptey k can no ^ ac * as auxiliary to a Court of Bankruptcy under 
 
 be auxiliary, this section 3 . 
 
 Applications under section 71(2) will normally be' 
 made to the registrar 4 . 
 
 Where an Australian bankruptcy act vests in the 
 trustee all the property of the debtor wheresover sit- 
 uate, an English court on application to it under the 
 section corresponding with 71(2). would, as a matter 
 of course, act in aid of the Australian court as regards 
 property in England 5 . 
 
 8 In re Dominion Cold Storage Go~, Lowerey's Case (1898), 18 P. 
 R. 68. 
 
 'In re Sovereign Bank (1915), 43 N. B. R. 519. 
 
 10 In re Companies Act and Hercules Insurance Co. (1871), 6 Ir. 
 R. Eq. 207. The English practice requires a formal order ; In re Holly- 
 ford Copper. Mining Co. (1869), L. R. 5 Ch. 93; In re City of Glasgow 
 Bank (18S0), 14 Ch. D. 628. 
 
 "In re Huntly etc parte Goldstein (1917), 14 B. R. 209. 
 
 1 Ex parte Craig in re Dooson, W. N. 1903, p. 155. 
 
 * (1885), 2 Mor. 291. 
 
 3 Callender Sykes & Co t v. Colonial Secretary of Lagos (1891), 
 A. C. 460; 60 L. J. P. C. 33. 
 
 * In re Firbank ex parte Knight (1887), 4 Mor. 50. 
 
 5 In re Levy's Trusts (1885), 30 Ch. D. 119; 54 L. J. Ch,'968. 
 See on the question of concurrent bankruptcies, In re and em parte 
 Robinson (1883), 22 Ch. D. 816; Ex parte Vizianagaram Co., In re 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 587 
 
 It has been held under The Winding-up Act that section 72 
 the Dominion Parliament has jurisdiction to empower sec. 71(3). 
 the court to refer and delegate to any officer of the 
 court any of the powers conferred upon the court by 
 the Act 6 . 
 
 72. (1) The court may by warrant direct the search 
 seizure or search in behalf of the trustee™ 
 under a receiving order or authorized assign- 
 ment, of or for any part of the property of 
 the debtor, whether in possession of the 
 debtor or of any other person, and for that 
 purpose the breaking open of any building 
 or place where the debtor or any part of his 
 property is believed to be. 
 
 (2) Any warrant of a court having jurisdiction Enforcement 
 in bankruptcy may be enforced in any part of warrants - 
 of the Dominion of Canada in the manner 
 prescribed or in the same manner and sub- 
 ject to the same privileges in, and subject to 
 which, a warrant issued by any justice of the 
 peace under or in pursuance of the Criminal 
 Code may be executed against a person for 
 an indictable offence. 
 
 Cross References Act: Courts of bankruptcy, 63 ; arrest of 
 debtors, 55 ; warrant for apprehension and examination of debtors and 
 .others, 56 ; commitment to prison, 73. 
 
 Cross References Rules: To whom warrant to be addressed, 44; 
 duty of sheriff and other officers, 45 ; custody and production of debtor, 
 45, 47 ; execution of warrant, 46 ; suspension of order of committal, 48 ; 
 provincial rules, 49. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Warrant for committal for contempt, 
 58 ; warrant of seizure, 60 ; warrant of arrest against debtor, 61. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts, (1914), s. 123; (1883), 
 s. 119. 
 
 Section 72 is given in the form in which it was en- 
 
 jen & Co. (1908), 1 K. B. 675. 677; 77 L. J. K. B. 319; 15 
 Mans. 28; In r.e and ex parte McCulloch (1880), 14 Ch. D. 716; In re 
 Anderson (1911), 1 K. B. 896; 80 L. J. K. B. 919; 18 Mans. 218; 
 to parte James in re O'Reardon (1873), L. R. 9 Ch. 74; 43 L. J. 
 Bank. 13. 
 
 t. «°J n re Far mer's Bank of Canada, Lindsay's Case (1916), 28 D. L. 
 R328;35 0.L. R. 470. 
 
588 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 73 acted by section 47 of The Bankruptcy Act Amendment 
 ~ Act, 1921. The previous section read: — 
 
 72. (1) Any warrant of a court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy 
 may be enforced in any part of the Dominion of Canada in the . 
 same manner and subject to the same privileges in, and subject to 
 which, a warrant issued by any justice of the peace under or in 
 pursuance of the Criminal Code may be executed against a person 
 for an indictable offence. 
 
 (2) A search warrant issued by a court having jurisdiction in 
 bankruptcy for the discovery of any property of a debtor may 
 be executed in manner prescribed or in the same manner and 
 subject to the same privileges in and subject to which a search 
 warrant for property supposed to be stolen may be executed accord- 
 ing to law. 
 
 Commitment 
 to prison. 
 
 Imprison- 
 ment, 
 where. 
 
 Keeper of 
 gaol, duties 
 of. 
 
 73. Where the court commits any person to 
 prison, the commitment may be to such con- 
 venient prison as the court thinks expedient, 
 and if the gaoler of any prison refuses to 
 receive any prisoner so committed, he shall 
 be liable for every such refusal to a fine not 
 exceeding five hundred dollars.. 
 
 Cross References Act: Arrest of debtors, 55 ; warrant for 
 apprehension and examination of debtors and others, 56; enforcement 
 and execution of warrant, 72. 
 
 Cross References Rules: To whom warrant may be addressed, 
 44 ; duty of sheriff and other officers, 52 ; custody and production ot 
 debtor, 45, 47; execution of warrant, 46; suspension of order of com- 
 mittal, 48; provincial rules, 49. 
 
 Cross References Forms: Warrant for committal for contempt, 
 58 ; warrant of seizure, 60 ; warrant of arrest against debtor, 61. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts, 1914, s. 124; (1883), s. 
 120. 
 
 Section 27 of The Interpretation Act, E. S. C. 1906, 
 c. 1, reads : 
 
 27(1) If, in any Act, any person is directed to be imprisoned 
 or committed to prison, such imprisonment or committal shall, if 
 no other place is mentioned or provided by law, be in or to the 
 common gaol of the locality in which the order for such imprison- 
 ment is made, or if there is no common gaol there, then in or to 
 that common gaol which is nearest to such locality. • 
 
 (2) The keeper of any such common gaol shall receive such 
 person, and safely keep and detain him in such common gaol under 
 his custody until discharged in due course of law, or bailed, in 
 cases in which bail may, by law, be taken. 
 
, THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 589 
 
 Review and Appeal. 
 
 74 (1) Every court having jurisdiction in 
 
 bankruptcy under this Act may review, — 
 
 rescind or vary any order made by it under re° y 1ew?etc. 
 its bankruptcy jurisdiction. 
 
 (2) Any person dissatisfied with an order or Appeals in 
 decision of the court or a judge in any pro- an ruptcy - 
 ceedings under this Act may, — 
 
 (a) if the question to be raised on the ap- 
 peal involves future rights ; or, 
 
 (b) if the order or decision is likely to 
 affect other cases of a similar nature in 
 the bankruptcy or authorized assignment 
 proceedings; or, 
 
 (c) if the amount involved in the appeal 
 exceeds five hundred dollars; or, 
 
 (d) if the appeal is from the grant or refusal 
 to grant a discharge and the aggregate of 
 the unpaid claims of creditors exceeds 
 five hundred dollars : 
 
 appeal to the Appeal Court. 
 . (3) The decision of the Appeal Court upon any supreme 
 such appeal shall be final and conclusive canad° f 
 unless special leave to appeal therefrom to 
 the Supreme Court of Canada is obtained 
 from a judge of that court. 
 
 (4) The Supreme Court of Canada shall, have Jurisdiction. 
 jurisdiction to hear and to decide according 
 
 to its ordinary procedure any appeal so per- 
 mitted and to award costs. 
 
 (5) No such appeal to the Supreme Court of N « sta y° f 
 Canada shall operate as a stay of proceed- SSell " 
 ings unless the judge who permits sueh ordered - 
 appeal shall so order, and to the extent to 
 which he shall order, and the appellant shall 
 
 not be required to provide any security for 
 costs, but unless he provides security for 
 costs, in an amount to. be fixed by the judge 
 permitting the appeal, he shall not be 
 awarded Costs in the event of his success 
 upon such appeal. 
 
590 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 74 
 
 Decision 
 final. 
 
 (6) The decision of the Supreme Court of Can- 
 ada on any such appeal shall be final and 
 conclusive. 
 
 Cross References Act: Courts having jurisdiction in bankruptcy, 
 63 ; discharge of 9ebtor, 58 ; jurisdiction of Appeal Court, 63(3) ; Appeal 
 Court defined, 2(c) ; appeals from registrar, 65(4). 
 
 Cross References Rales: Appeals -to Appeal Court, 68-71; 
 appeals to Supreme Court, 72-73 ; appeals' from registrar, 67 ; appeal 
 from decision of trustee on rejection of proof, 117; appeal to Appeal 
 Court on disposition of application for discharge, 136. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: 
 
 English A«t, 1914, s. 108. 
 
 Winding Up Act, 1906, ss. 101, 102; 
 
 What court 
 may review, 
 rescind or 
 vary. 
 
 Analysis op Notes. 
 
 What court may review, rescind or vary. 
 
 Circumstances under which the court will rehear. 
 
 Ex parte orders not appealed against. 
 
 Review of order refusing discharge. 
 
 Rescinding receiving order. 
 
 Appeal from rehearing. 
 
 Right of appeal under English Act. 
 
 And under Winding Up Act. 
 
 Who may appeal. 
 
 Meaning of the words " the court or a judge." 
 
 Right of appeal exists only in cases witihin section 74. 
 
 Meaning of " future rights." 
 
 When the amount involved exceeds five hundred dollars. 
 
 Exercise of powers by Appeal Court. 
 
 Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada. 
 
 Abandonment of appeal. 
 
 If the registrar makes the order he alone is the court 
 which can review, rescind or vary it; and the same 
 is true of the judge and of the Appeal Court 7 . There 
 fore where a registrar has incorrectly drawn up an 
 order made by a judge he has no jurisdiction to alter 
 it ; it must be corrected by the judge 8 . And an order 
 made by a judge not in exercise of his bankruptcy jur- 
 isdiction cannot be rescinded or varied by him in pur- 
 suance of the jurisdiction given him under The Bank- 
 ruptcy Act". A similar rule pertained under The Wind- 
 ing-up Act ; for the order of a judge in charge of wind- 
 
 7 Per A. L. Smith, J., In re and ex parte Maugham (1888) , 21 Q. B. 
 D. 21 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 487 ; 5 Mor. 152 ; of. E® parte Maohay in re 
 Jeavons (No. 2) (1873), L. R. 9 Ch. 127; 43 L. J. Bank. 105; where 
 the Registrar was sitting as chief judge. 
 
 8 In In re Beard ex parte Lewis (1898), 10 Mor. 178; 69 L. T. 259. 
 "In re Suffleld & Watts ex parte Brown (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 693; 5 
 
 Mor. 83. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 591 
 
 ing-up proceedings could not be varied or rescinded section 74 
 by another judge, even though the first order was made ~ 
 in excess of the judge's jurisdiction under The Witid- 
 ing-up Act 10 . 
 
 The Court ought not to be asked to re-hear on the Ch-cum- 
 same materials as were before it on the previous occa- ^er which 
 sion 1 unless the previous order was made under a ^1°°^,. 
 clear misapprehension of the real state of affairs 2 . The 
 fact that an appeal is pending from an order made does 
 not deprive the Court of the jurisdiction to rehear the 
 case 3 , nor does the fact that the time limited for appeal- 
 ing has expired, though that may be a reason inducing 
 the court to require special grounds before allowing a 
 re-hearing 4 . The court should not grant a re-hearing 
 for the sole purpose of enabling an appeal to be brought 
 which would otherwise have been too late 5 . Where a 
 bankrupt appears in the Court below and does not 
 object to an order of adjudication the court may con- 
 sider that he is prevented from coming forward to 
 ask for a re-hearing, even though the ground of the 
 application is that there was no jurisdiction to make 
 the order 6 . Semble, leave for a re-hearing or review 
 should not be given ex parte 1 . 
 
 Where an order has been made ex parte the person 
 
 10 Per Barker, McLeod and Gregory, J.J., in Re The. Gushing Sul- 
 phite Fibre Co., Ltd. (1906), 38 N. B. R. 581, contra Tuck, C.J., and 
 Hanington, J.; Pontbriand Co. v. Gosky (1912), 14 Que. P. R. 19; 
 7n re Lake Superior Copper Co., Ltd. in re Plummer (1885), 9 O. R. 
 277. 
 
 1 Per Osier, J.A., In re The Equitable Savings Loan and Building 
 Association (1903) , 6 O. L. R. 26, at 31. 
 
 2 Ibid, per Maclennan, J.A., at 33 ; per Cave, J., In re Ayshford ex 
 parte Lovering (1887) , 4 Mor. 164 ; 35 W. R. 652. 
 
 3 Ex parte Keighley in re Wike (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 667; 44 L. J. 
 Bank. 13. A registrar may re-hear a case although his order has been 
 appealed from and varied by the Court of Appeal if the special point to 
 be re-heard was not dealt with on the appeal: Ex parte Mackay in re 
 •Jeavons, supra. 
 
 'Ex parte Ritso (1883), 22 Oh. D. 529; 52 L. J. Bank. 535; Ex 
 parte Brown in re Jeavons (1874), L. R. 9 Oh. 304; 43 L. J. Bank. 
 10o; c/. In re and ex parte May (1884) , 12 Q. B. D. 497 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 
 571; 50 L. T. 744; 1 Mor. 50. 
 
 'Ex parte Simmons in re Lister (1876), 2 Oh. D. 749; 45 L. J. 
 Bank. 113; 34 L. T. 744; In re Tobias and Co. ex parte Tobias (1891), 
 1 Q-^B. 463 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 244 ; 8 Mor. 30. 
 In re and ex\ parte May, supra. 
 
 'Ex parte Ritso (1883) , 22 Ch. D. 529 ; '52 L. J. Bank. 535 ; In re 
 and ex parte Lloyd (1889) , 6 Mor. 297 ; 62 L. T. 366. 
 
592 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 74 affected by it should; not appeal, but should apply to 
 Ex par te the court which made it to have it reviewed, rescinded 
 ° rders le ° ot or varied 8 . 
 
 against. Where the discharge of a bankrupt has been refused 
 
 R eview of absolutely such bankrupt may not apply to the court 
 fagdis- de novo for an order of discharge, but should apply 
 charge. £ Qr a rev i ew f ^he or( j er 9. On such an application the 
 bankrupt must make out a prima facie case for review. 
 If the court considers that these are prima facie 
 grounds for a review any person dissatisfied should 
 appeal at once from the determination to review the 
 order and not wait until the order has been brought up 
 for review before appealing 10 . 
 Rescinding There is jurisdiction under section 74(1) to rescind 
 order! 1 " 8 a receiving order 1 . Whether or not the jurisdiction 
 should be exercised is a matter of judicial discretion 2 . 
 Appeal from When there has been a re-hearing but no variation 
 rehearmg. f ^ e original order, an appeal will lie from the order 
 made on the re-hearing^ even though the time for 
 appealing from the original order has gone by 3 ; simi- 
 larly when there has been a variation 4 . 
 Right of The section of the English Act 5 corresponding with 
 
 Engifsh under section 74(2) is both narrower and wider than that 
 A ct. section. It is narrower in that a right of appeal is 
 
 'Ex parte Goldstein in re a Debtor (1917), 1 K. B. 558 ; 86 L. J. 
 K. B. 705; 116 L. T. 379; distinguishing In re Gold Co. (1879), 12 
 Oh. D. 771. and following In re North Australian Territory Co. (1890), 45 
 Ch. D. 87, 93. See In re Central Bank of Canada (1897), 17 P. R. 
 370. Contrast per Osier, J.A., In re The Equitable Savings Loan and 
 Bvilding Association (1903), 6 O. L. R. 26, at 31, and see MoNabb V. 
 Oppenheimer (1885), 11 P. R. 214. A winding-up order is not a judg- 
 ment in rem., and if made improperly is not binding on strangers ; In re 
 Bowling and Webley's Contract (1895). 1 Oh. 663; 64 L. J. Ch. 427; 
 2 Mans. 257. 
 
 'In re Tobias and Co. ex parte Tobias (1891), 1 Q. B. 463; 60 L. 
 J. Q. B. 244; 8 Mor. 30. 
 
 " In re and ex parte Lloyd, supra; in re Tobias and Co. ex parts 
 Tobias, supra. 
 
 1 In re and ex parte Wemyss (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 244; 53 L. J. Q. 
 B. 496; 1 Mor. 157; compare section 62(1). 
 
 2 In re and ex parte Leslie (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 619; 4 Mor. 75; 56 
 L. T. 569 ; In re Izod eat parte O. R. (1898) , 1 Q. B. 241 ; 67 L. J. Q. B. 
 Ill ; 77 L. T. 640 ; 4 Mans. 343. 
 
 3 In re and ex parte Ashworth and Outram (1893), 10 Mor. 175; 
 69 L. T. 259; Ex parte Keighley in re Wike (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 667; 
 44 L. J. Bank. 13; Ex parte Brown in re Jeavons (1874), L. R. 9 Oh. 
 304 ; 43 L. J. Bank. 105 ; 30 L. T. 108. 
 
 'In re Bishop ex parte Claxton (1891), S Mor. 221. 
 "Section 108(2). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 593 
 
 only conferred on a person "aggrieved" and not on section 74 
 one dissatisfied 6 ; it is wider in that it contains no pro- ~~ 
 visions corresponding with subsections (a)(b){c)(d) 
 of section 74(2). 
 
 It is important also when considering cases under And under 
 The Winding-up Act to remember that a material dif- w c i t ° ding " up 
 ference exists between section 101 of that Act and sec- 
 tion 74(2). The two sections are practically identical 
 except that under The Winding-up Act the dissatisfied 
 person may only appeal by leave of a judge of the 
 court appealed from 7 . This gave power under The 
 Winding-up Act to exercise some check on appeals. It 
 has heen said that section 101 of The Winding-up Act 
 intends the decision of a judge to be final unless in the 
 opinion of the judge applied to there is some ground 
 for allowing the litigation to be prolonged 8 . The mat- 
 ters in regard to which an appeal is contemplated by 
 section 101 were substantial matters of property or 
 rights arising in the winding-up proceeding. They did 
 hot include contests as to which creditor should issue 
 the order or what solicitor should secure the casual 
 advantages resulting from the carriage of the order 9 . 
 It is considered that the policy of The Bankruptcy Act 
 is that in cases not falling within sub-headings (a) (b) 
 {c){d) of section 74(2), it is better that there should be 
 an end of the litigation and a speedy distribution of 
 the estate rather than the delay and expense necessar- 
 ily incident to an appeal 10 . 
 
 There is no rule in bankruptcy to the effect that who may 
 only those persons may appeal who have been repre- appeal - 
 
 "See as to what in England constitutes a "■person aggrieved": 
 per James, L.J., In re and ex parte Sidebotham (1879), 14 Ch. D. 458, 
 M ; 49 L. J. Bank. 41. 
 
 ' Under the Winding Up Act a judge other than the judge directing 
 the winding-up proceedings may grant leave to appeal from an order of 
 that judge: In re The Cushing Sulphite Fibre Co., Ltd. (1906), 38 N. B. 
 8- 581. though the normal practice -would 'be to apply to the judge 
 ™ ak ™g the order objected' to, per Boyd, C, In re Belding Lumber Co. 
 
 ililV' 28 °" L ' R- 255 ' at 257 " But under T,le B <>- nk ™picy Act, s. 
 o4(S), only the judge assigned by the Minister of Justice or by the 
 Chief Justice can exercise the bankruptcy jurisdiction conferred. 
 
 In re Ontario Bank (1917), 12 O. W. N. 245. 
 
 7n re Belding Lumber Co. (1911), 23 O. L. R. 255. 
 
 In re McGill Chair Co. (1912), 5 D. L. R. 393. 
 
 B.C.— 38 
 
594 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 74 sented in the court below. Whether such persons 
 should apply for a re-hearing or by way of appeal may 
 perhaps depend, on the facts of each case 1 . 
 Meaning of When considering the scope of the words ' ' any per- 
 "thJcou d rt or son dissatisfied with an order or decision of the Court 
 a judge." or a judge" in section 74(2), the effect of section 65(4) 
 providing that any person dissatisfied with an order 
 or decision of the registrar may appeal therefrom to 
 a judge, should not be overlooked 2 . 
 Right of The right of appeal exists only in cases falling 
 
 only in exls within 'section 74. Where no right of appeal is there 
 aBdaon V 74 Ul §^ vei1 the decision is final 3 . Conversely no appeal can 
 be brought under the Act in a matter which is not a 
 "proceeding" under the Act 4 . The expressed conclu- 
 sion of a judge which is capable of being embodied in 
 an order is an order for the purpose of' appeal 5 . No 
 appeal lies from an order granting leave to appeal 6 , 
 but if it is a question whether the conditions existed 
 enabling the leave to be granted, then the court may 
 treat the right to appeal as being established 7 . 
 Meaning of It has been said that the words "future rights" 
 rights/* should be given a wide interpretation 8 , and semble an 
 order giving leave to bring an action for an ordinary 
 money claim after the receiving order has been made 
 may affect future rights 9 ; but an order giving leave to 
 serve a summons ex juris in an action of misfeasance 
 against directors of a company being wound up is not 
 
 1 In re and ex parte Michael (1891), 8 Mor. 305. 
 
 2 See sect ! ons 2(0, 63, 66(1). 
 
 3 In re Sarnia Oil Go. (1893), 15 P. R. 347; In re McLean, Stinson 
 £ Brodie, Ltd. (1911), 18 O. W. R. 163: 2 O. W. N. 435. 
 
 'Arnold v. Dominion Trust Go. (1918), 56 S. O. R. 433. 
 
 'In re Jones (1868), 4 P. R. 317. 
 
 "Per Hodgins. J.A., In re J. McCarthy & Sons Go. of Prescott, Ltd. 
 (1916), 38 O. L. R. 3; 32 D. L. R. 441, at p. 7, quoting En> parte 
 Stevenson (1892), 1 Q. B. 394, 609; In re Central Bank of Canada 
 (1897), 17 P. R. 395. 
 
 ''Per Hodgins, J.A., iMd.,. citing Gillett v. Lumsden (1905), A. 0. 
 601; Toumsend v. Northern Grown Bank (1913), 4 O. W. N. 1245; In 
 re Ketcheson and Canadian Northern Ontario R. W. Co. (1913), 5 0. 
 W. N. 271, 350. 
 
 8 Per Meredith, C. J.C.P., In re J. McCarthy & Sons Co. of Prescott, 
 Ltd., supra, cit : ng In re Union Fire Insurance Co. (1886) , 13 O. A. R 
 268, 295; Shoolbred v. Union Fire Insurance Go. (1886), 14 S. C. B. 
 C24 ; In re Toronto Cream and Butter Co., Ltd. (1909), 14 O. W. R 81. 
 
 • In re J. McCarthy & Sons Co. of Prescott, Ltd,, supra. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 595 
 
 a matter affecting future rights, but is a mere matter of section 74 
 practice and procedure 10 . 
 
 A winding-up order or an order refusing to make a 
 winding-up order involves future rights and are there- 
 fore appealable 1 . 
 
 The amount in the appeal does not exceed five hun- when the 
 dred dollars when the amount due from each contri- Solved 
 butory is less than five hundred dollars, but the aggre- |^|^ d fiTe 
 gate of the amounts due from the settled list of contri- dollars, 
 butories exceeds that sum 2 . The amount involved in 
 the appeal is the amount of the judgment against 
 which it is sought to appeal and not the interest of the 
 appellant in the judgment 3 , or the amount demanded 
 in the proceedings 4 . No amount is involved in an order 
 refusing to set aside an order for service ex juris in a 
 misfeasance suit against directors of a company in 
 liquidation under the Act 5 . A judgment refusing to 
 set aside a winding-up order does not involve any 
 amount and leave to appeal therefrom cannot on that 
 ground be granted 6 . Interest and costs may not be 
 included to make up the amount of five hundred dol- 
 lars required by the section 7 . 
 
 Where a receiving order is made on appeal, it may Exercise of 
 be dated as if it had been made on the application ^,1™ by 
 appealed from 8 , but for purposes of section 32 the date Court, 
 of the receiving order is the date on which it was made 
 and not the date it bears 9 . Where on appeal against 
 the making of a receiving order, the Appeal Court 
 
 "Brown v. Caldwell (1918), 2 W. W. R. 229. 
 
 'Per Osier, J.A., In re Union Fire Insurance Co. (1886), 13 O. A. 
 R. 268, at 295; Marsden v. Minnekahda Land Co. (1918), 40 D. I>. K. 
 76; contrast In re Elliott & Sons, Ltd. (1915). 9 O. W. N. 51. 
 
 'Stephens v. Gerth et al.; In re Ontario Express and Transportation 
 Co. (1895), 24 S. C. R. 716. 
 
 'Per Anglin, J., In re Great Northern Construction Co., Ross v. 
 McRae (1916), 53 S. C. R. 128; and see per Idington, J., 8.C., con- 
 trast per Maclaren, J.A,, In Townsend v. Northern Crown Bank (1913), 
 4 O.W.N. 1245. 
 
 'laid., per Brodeur, J. 
 
 'Brown v. Caldwell (1918), 2 W. W. R. 229. 
 
 'Gushing Sulphite Fibre Co. v. Gushing (1906), 37 S. C. R. 427. 
 Dufresne v. Guevrement (1896), 26 S. C. R. 216; Wiarton Beet 
 Uoot^Sugar Co., Kydd's Case (1905), 6 O. W. R. 590. 
 
 Jn re Raatz ev parte Carlhian (1897). 4 Mans. 50; 76 L. T. 330. 
 in re Teale ex parte Blackburn (1912), 2 K. B. 367; 81 L. J. 
 K- B. 1243 ; 19 Mans. 327. 
 
596 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 t 
 
 section 74 strikes out all reference in the order to one of two 
 ~ alleged acts of bankruptcy, e.g the giving of an alleged 
 fraudulent bill of sale,, notice of the receiving order 
 must be re-gazetted 10 . Where a discretion is given to 
 the court the exercise of the discretion on proper prin- 
 ciples will not generally 1 be interfered with on appeal ; 
 aliter where the principle properly applicable was not 
 applied 2 . 
 
 It was held under The Winding-up Act that leave 
 would not be given to appeal to the Supreme Court of 
 Canada though the amount in controversy exceeded 
 $2,000 if neither an important principle of law nor the 
 construction of a public act nor a question of public 
 interest were involved 3 . 
 
 It has been held in England that where an appeal 
 has been lodged and the appellant desires to abandon 
 it, the proper order- is that it be dismissed with costs, 
 not that it be allowed to be withdrawn 4 . 
 
 Appeal to 
 Supreme 
 Court of 
 Canada. 
 
 Abandon 
 ment of 
 appeal. 
 
 10 In re a Debtor ex parte a Person Aggrieved (1912), 106 L. T. 344. 
 
 1 In re The Cushing Sulphite. Fibre Co., Ltd. (1906) , 38 N. B. E. 
 581. 
 
 2 In re J. McCarthy & Sons Co. of Prescott, Ltd. (1916), 38 O. L. 
 R. 3 ; 32 D. L. R. 441. 
 
 3 Riley v. Curtis 's and Harvey, Ltd. (1920) , 59 S. C. R. 206. 
 ''In re Downing ex parte Mardon (1891), 8 Mor. 302. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 PART VII. 
 
 Supplemental Provisions. 
 
 75. Every married woman who carries on a section 75 
 trade or business, whether separately from Marrie(1 — 
 her husband or not, shall be subject to the woman, 
 provisions of this Act as if she were a feme 
 sole, and for all the purposes of this Act 
 any judgment or order obtained against 
 her, whether or not expressed to be payable 
 out of her separate property shall have 
 effect as though, she were personally bound 
 to pay the judgment debt or sum ordered to 
 be paid. 
 
 Cross References Act: Debtor defined, 2(o) ; judgment, execu- 
 tion and attachment in case of married woman, 2(v) ; husband a re- 
 stricted creditor, 48(1). 
 
 Sections 2(-o), 2'(t>) and the notes thereunder 
 should be read with section 75. 
 
 Business is wider than trade. Farming is a busi- 
 ness but not a trade 5 . 
 
 The letting on one occasion of two rooms in a house 
 in response to an advertisement is not the carrying on 
 of a trade or business 8 ; but the promotion of com- 
 panies to take over hotels may be a business within the 
 section 7 . One transaction may be evidence of a carry- 
 ing on of a trade 8 . 
 
 A person who has been trading is deemed a trader 
 until he has paid all the debts and obligations 9 relating 
 to his trade 10 . A fortiori if he not only omits to pay 
 
 'Horns v. Amery (1865), L. R. 1 C. P. 148, 154; In re Long 
 (1905), 2 I. E. 343. As to farming see section 8. 
 
 "Ex parte Plant in re Parkinson (1893), 9 T. L. R. 388. 
 
 'In re OlarJc ex parte Pope and Owles (1914), 3 K. B. 1095; 84 
 L. J. K. B. 89 ; 1 H. B. R. 1. 
 
 8 In re Clark etc parte Pope and Owles, supra, at 1104, 1110. 
 
 "Such as a liability in tort for the negligence of a servant: In re 
 Allen ex parte Shaw (1915), 1 K. B. 285; 84 L. J. K. B. 271; 1 H. B. 
 R. 39. 
 
 In re Clarlc e® parte Pope and Owles, supra; In re Dagnalt ex 
 parte Soan & Morley (1896), 2 Q. B. 407; 65 L. J. Q. B. 666; 3 Mans. 
 
598 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 77 bis trade debts but continues to get in the assets df 
 the business". 
 
 An unmarried "woman who, marries and continues 
 to trade is within the section ; as may be an administra- 
 trix who carries on her father 's business 1 . 
 
 Application 
 to limited 
 partnerships. 
 
 76. Subject to such modifications as may Be 
 made by General Rules, the provisions of 
 this Act shall apply to limited partnerships 
 in like manner as if limited partnerships 
 were ordinary partnerships, and, on all the 
 general partners of a limited partnership 
 being adjudged bankrupt or making an au- 
 thorized assignment, the assets of the limited 
 partnership shall vest in the trustee. 
 
 Cross References Act: Person includes partnership, 2(oa) ; 
 ranking of debts in case of partnership, 28(2) ; dividend out of separate 
 property, 37(4) ; dividends on joint and separate properties to be 
 declared together, 37(5); proof in respect of distinct contracts, 47; 
 restricted creditors in case of . partnership, 48(3) ; applicability of joint 
 and separate estate, 51(3) ; order of discharge not- to release partner, 
 61(3) ; consolidation and conduct of proceedings in partnership cases, 
 69 ; actions in name of partner or firm, 70 ; firm may act by any of its 
 members, 85. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Effect of a receiving order against a 
 firm, 94 ; rights and liabilities of limited partners, 95. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: 
 
 s. 24. 
 
 English Acts (1914), s. 127; (1913), 
 
 Evidence of 
 proceedinga 
 at meetings 
 of creditors. 
 
 Evidence of 
 regularity. 
 
 77 (1) A minute of proceedings at a meeting 
 of creditors under this Act, signed at the 
 same or the next ensuing meeting by a per- 
 son describing himself as or appearing to 
 be chairman of the meeting at which the 
 minute is signed, shall be received in evi- 
 dence without further proof. 
 
 (2) Until the contrary is proved, every meet- 
 ing of creditors in respect to the proceedings 
 whereof & minute has been so signed, shall be 
 
 11 In re Reynolds ex parte White Bros., Ltd. (1915), 2 K. B. 186; 
 84 L. J. K. E. 1346; 1 H B. R. 174. 
 
 1 In re Reynolds ex parte White Bros., Ltd., supra. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 599 
 
 deemed to have been duly convened and held section 78 
 and all resolutions passed or proceedings - 
 thereat to have been duly passed or had. 
 
 (3) A. copy of the Canada Gazette containing Evidence of 
 any notice inserted therein in pursuance of „*y* e in 
 this Act, shall be evidence of the facts stated 
 
 in the notice. 
 
 (4) The production of a copy of the Canada Evidence of 
 Gazette containing any notice of a receiving ™f™ ns 
 order adjudging a debtor bankrupt, shall be 
 conclusive evidence in all legal proceedings 
 
 of the order having been duly made, and of 
 its date. 
 
 Cross References Act: Meetings of creditors, 42 ; minutes to be 
 kept, 42(8) ; notice to be gazetted of R. O. & A. A., 11(4) ; notice of 
 appointment of new trustee, 15(3) ; notice of order of discharge, 61(5) ; 
 notice of order annulling bankruptcy, 62(3). 
 
 Cross References Rules: Meetings of creditors', 112-114. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts (1914), ss. 138, 137; 
 (1883), ss. 133, 132'; Canada Evidence Act, K. g. C. (1906), c. 145, 
 8.30. 
 
 The phrase "a receiving order adjudging a debtor 
 bankrupt" in section 77(4) is perhaps a little con- 
 densed See section 4(5). 
 
 The production of the copy of the Canada Gazette 
 referred to in section 77(4) is conclusive evidence not 
 only as between the trustee and the bankrupt but also 
 as between the trustee and third parties 2 . 
 
 . The words "legal proceedings" in section 77(4) do 
 not include proceedings for the purpose of questioning 
 or annulling an adjudication 3 . 
 
 78. Any petition or copy of a petition in bank- Evidence of 
 ruptcy, any order or certificate or copy of fntank- 1118 
 an order or certificate, made by any court mptcy. 
 having jurisdiction in bankruptcy, any in- 
 strument or copy of an instrument, affidavit 
 
 'Ex parte Learoyd in re Foulds (1878), 10 Ch. D. 3 ; 48 L. J. 
 Bank. 17, and see Boaler v. Power (1910), 2 K. B. 299; 79 L. J. K. B. 
 *86; 17 Mans. 125. 
 
 'Ex parte Geisel in re Stanger (1882), 22 Oh. D. 436, 439, 440; 53 
 L. J. Ch. 349 ; per Cotton, L.J., 439-450. 
 
600 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 79 or document made or used in the course of 
 
 any bankruptcy proceedings or other pro- 
 ceedings had under this Act shall if it 
 appears to be sealed with the seal of any 
 court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy, or 
 purports to be signed by any judge thereof, 
 or is certified as a true copy by any registrar 
 thereof, be receivable in evidence in all 
 legal proceedings whatever. 
 
 Cross References Act: Petition, 4 ;~order of discharge, 58; order 
 annulling adjudication, 62 ; seal of court, 80 ; evidence of proceedings at 
 meetings of creditors, 77(1) ; .evidence of facts in notice in Canada 
 Gazette, 77(3) ; evidence of receiving order in Canada Gazette, 77(4) ; 
 " in all legal proceedings," 77 (4) . 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts (1914). s. 139; (1883), 
 s. 134. 
 
 On a motion to stay proceedings under an attach- 
 ment issued after the making of a winding-up order, 
 proof of the making of the "winding-up order may he 
 made, in Nova Scotia at least, by the affidavit of the 
 liquidator appointed by the Supreme Court of New- 
 Brunswick. It is not necessary to produce a certified 
 or sealed copy of the winding-up order 4 . 
 
 swearing of 79. Subject to General Rules, any affidavit to 
 be used in a court exercising jurisdiction in 
 bankruptcy under this Act may be sworn 
 before any person authorized to administer 
 oaths in the court having ' jurisdiction or 
 before any registrar of the court or before 
 any officer of a court having jurisdiction in 
 bankruptcy authorized in writing in that 
 behalf by the court, or before a justice of the 
 peace for the province, county or place 
 where it is sworn, or, in the ease of a person 
 who is out of Canada, before a notary public, 
 a magistrate or justice of the peace or other 
 person qualified .to administer oaths in the 
 country where he resides, he being certified 
 
 4 Salter v. St. Lawrence Lumler Co., Ltd. (1896), 28 N. S. K. 335. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 601 
 
 to be a magistrate or justice of the peace or sections 
 
 qualified as aforesaid by a British consul or 80,81 
 
 vice-consul or by a notary public. 
 
 Cross References Act: Courts exercising jurisdiction in bank- 
 ruptcy, 63; barristers, solicitors and advocates to be officers of the 
 courts, 87(2). 
 
 Cross References Rules: Affidavit other than proof for debt, not 
 to be sworn before the solicitor acting for the party on whose behalf it 
 is to be used, 31 ; general rules with respect to affidavits, 26-33, 152. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts (1914), s. 140; (1883), 
 s. 135; Canadian Act (1875), s. 105; Winding Up Act, R. S. C. (1906), 
 c. 144, g. 145. See R. S. C. 1906, c. 145. The Canada Evidence Act 
 passim, and particularly ss. 13, 14, 27, 35, 36. 
 
 The notarial certificate referred to in the last three 
 lines of the section is only required when such an affi- 
 davit is sworn before a foreign functionary 6 . 
 
 80. Every court having jurisdiction in bank- seal of court, 
 ruptcy under this Act shall have a seal 
 describing the court, and judicial notice 
 shall be taken of the seal and of the signa- 
 ture of the judge or registrar of any such 
 court in all legal proceedings. 
 
 Cross References Act: Courts with jurisdiction in bankruptcy, 
 63 ; effect of sealing deposition of dead witness, 81 ; petition order or 
 certificate receivable, in evidence when sealed, 78. 
 
 Cross References Rnles: All petitions, warrants and subpoenas 
 issued by the court to be sealed, 10. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts (1914), s. 142; (1383), 
 s. 137. 
 
 394. 
 
 81. In case of the death of the debtor or his Death of 
 wife, or of a witness whose evidence has w!taess° r 
 been received by any court in any proceed- 
 ings under this Act, the deposition of the 
 person so deceased, purporting to be sealed 
 with the seal of the court or a copy thereof 
 purporting to be so sealed, shall be admitted 
 as evidence of the matters therein deposed 
 to. 
 
 'In re and ex parte Magee (1883), 15 Q. B. T>. 332; 54 L. J. Q. B. 
 
ff02 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 
 
 Section 82 Cross References Act: Examination of debtor and others, 56. ' 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts (1914), ». 141; (1883), 
 s. 136. 
 
 The deposition when properly attested is by this 
 section made admissible after the death of the wit- 
 ness. It may also be used in the lifetime of the wit- 
 ness ; for the section is not to be construed as meaning, 
 that the depositions are not to be admitted during the 
 lifetime of the debtor or witness 6 . 
 
 Computation 
 of time. 
 
 82 (1) Where by this Act any limited time from 
 or after any date or event is appointed or 
 allowed for the doing of any act or the tak- 
 ing of any proceeding, then in the computa- 
 tion of that limited time the same shall be 
 taken as exclusive of the day of that date or 
 of the happening of that event, and as com- 
 mencing at the beginning of the next follow- 
 ing day ; and the act or proceeding shall be 
 done or taken at latest on the last day of 
 that limited time as so computed, unless the 
 last day is a Sunday or a statutory holiday 
 throughout the province where the act or 
 proceeding is to be done or taken or a day 
 on which the court does not sit, in which 
 case any act or proceeding shall be consid- 
 ered as done or taken in due time if it is 
 done or taken on the next day afterwards 
 which is not one of the days in this section 
 specified. 
 
 (2) Where by this Act any act or proceeding is 
 directed to be done or taken on a certain day, 
 then, if that day happens to be one of the 
 days in this section specified, the act or pro- 
 ceeding shall be considered as done or taken 
 in due time if it is done or taken on the next 
 day afterwards which shall not be one of the 
 days in this section specified. 
 
 "See R. v. Widdop (1872), 42 L. J. M. C. 9; L. R. 2 C,C. 3; 27 
 L. T. 693. ' 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 603 
 
 Cross References Act: Court may extend 1 time, 68(5) ; appeal Section 83 
 
 from disallowance of claim, 53(1) ; execution held by sheriff, 3(«) ; 
 
 dividend to be paid within six months, 37(1) 
 
 Cross References Rules: Where days not ordered to be clear 
 days. 148 ; where " clear days " or " at least " or " not less than,' r 149 ; 
 where less than six days is limited, 150; where time expires on Sunday 
 or on any day on which the offices of the court are closed, 151. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts (1914), s. 145; (1883), 
 s. 141. 
 
 The Interpretation Act E. S. C. 1906, c. 1, s. 31(h) 
 reads : 
 
 31. In every Act, unless the contrary intention appears, — 
 (ft) If the time limited by any Act for any proceeding, or the 
 doing of any' thing under its provisions, expires or falls upon a 
 holiday, the time so limited shall be extended to, and such thing 
 may be done on the day next following which is not a holiday. 
 
 83. All notices and other documents for the service of 
 service of which no special mode is directed notices - 
 may be sent by registered and prepaid post 
 to the last known address of the person to 
 be served therewith. 
 
 Cross References Act: Mailing notice of disallowance, 53 ; ser- 
 jice of appointment or summons, 56(2). 
 
 Cross References Rules: Service on solicitor if "-left at his 
 address for service, 50 ; hours of service, 51 ; service by registered letter, 
 52. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts (1914), s. 146; (1883), 
 ». 142. 
 
 Personal service of the summons issued under sec- 
 tion 56 is unnecessary; service may be by post 7 . Ser- 
 vice of a notice of motion to continue an injunction 
 may be made by post 8 ; but qucere whether service of a 
 notice of motion may be made by post on a stranger to 
 the bankruptcy 9 . 
 
 Where service of notice of appeal is made by post 
 the notice must be posted so as to reach the respondent 
 within the time allowed for bringing the appeal 10 . If 
 
 'In re Weinberg ex parte Official Receiver (1907), 96 L-. T. 790; 
 14 Mans. 277. 
 
 'Ex parte Mauthner m re Lewis (1876), 3 Oh. D. 113; 45 L. J. 
 Bank. 125. 
 
 'Em parte Hoboes in re Bates (1891), 8 T. L. R. 44. 
 
 " s « e In re Faulconer ex parte Cochrane (1869), 6 Mor. 206; 61 
 
604 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 84 this is not done the court will not extend the time 
 unless some special reason exists 1 . 
 
 A notice sent to the last known address may he a 
 good notice, even though the trustee is aware that the 
 person sought to be served is no longer at that address". 
 Sufficient notice of the granting of an injunction 
 may be given by telegram; but if this is all that is done 
 it may be difficult to obtain a commital for contempt 8 . 
 
 officials. 
 
 Formal 84 (1) No proceeding in bankruptcy or under 
 
 i^audate* an authorized assignment shall be invali- 
 
 or°a C ppoint- s ' dated by any formal defect or by any irregu- 
 
 mentof larity, unless the court before which an 
 
 objection is made to the proceeding is of 
 opinion that substantial injustice has been 
 caused by the defect or irregularity and that 
 the injustice cannot be remedied by any 
 order of that court. 
 (2) No defect or irregularity in the appoint- 
 ment of an authorized trustee or an inspec- 
 tor shall vitiate any. act done by him in good 
 faith. 
 
 Cross References Act: Amendment of written process or pro- 
 ceedings, 68(4) ; no advantage to be gained by any mistake, defect or 
 imperfection, 12 ; presumption of validity of proceedings at meetings, 
 77(2) ; conclusive evidence of receiving order, 77(4). 
 
 Cross References Rules : Non-compliance with rules not to render 
 proceeding void, 146. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts (1914), s. 147; (1883), 
 s. 143; (1869), s. 82; Dominion Winding Up Act, R. S. C. (1906), c. 
 144, s. 129. 
 
 This section has no application to defects which 
 are matters of substance, as distinguished from merely 
 formal defects. The word "appointment" in section 
 84(2) may. possibly include not only the appointment 
 but also the election of trustees 4 . 
 
 1 See In re Faulconer ex parte Cochrane, supra, but see In re and 
 ex parte Arden (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 121; 51 L. T. 712; 2 Mor. 1 and 
 cf. Ex parte Kiroy in re Alderson (1891). 8 Mor. 93. 
 
 2 In re Follick ex parte the Trustee (1908), 97 L. T. 645. 
 8 See Ex parte Langley in re Bishop (1879), 13 Oh; D. 110; 49 
 
 L. J. Bank. 1. 
 
 * Compare English Act, 1914, s. 147. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 605 
 
 Examples of formal defects or irregularities in Section 84 
 petitions or in affidavits accompanying them which the Forma] 
 court has permitted to be amended are, insufficient de *?£ te in 
 description of the Act of Bankruptcy or other facts 
 relied on 5 ; signature of one petitioning creditor not 
 attested 6 ; petitioning creditor a mere trustee 7 ; omis- 
 sion by petitioning creditor to state his willingness to 
 give up his security 8 ; misdescription of petitioner . 
 
 For an example of a formal defect in an order of 
 adjudication, see Oriental Bank v. Richer 10 , and in a 
 receiving order Lovell v. Beauchamp 1 . 
 
 Irregularities may be waived in certain cases 2 . 
 
 See where liquidators sued in their own name and 
 not that of the company and an amendment was 
 allowed, Kent v. Commnnaute 3 . 
 
 Where the application .to amend is made at such a where 
 point of time that no injustice will be done, e.g. before ^y n ^ ment 
 adjudication, when the petition can be ordered to be m ade. 
 re-served the amendment may be made*. 
 • Where a petition is amended under an order of the Verification 
 court the judge has a discretion as to requiring the^jn'tby 1 
 amendment to be verified by affidavit. If the alteration affidaTit 
 
 s In re Fiddian, Squire & Co. (1892), 9 Mor. 95. with which con- 
 trast Ex parte Coates in re Skelton (1877), 5 Ch. D. 979; In re and 
 ex parte Dunhill (1894), 2 Q. B. 284; 63 L. J. Q. B. 686; 1 Mans. 
 242; In re Exoart Carriage Works, Ltd. (1904), 8 O. L. R. 527; In re 
 Canadian (No. 2) (1914), 16 D. Ij. K. 17, with, which contrast In re 
 Kootenay Brewing Co. (1896) , 6 B. C. R. 112 ; In re Redpath Motor 
 Vehicle Co. (1904), 4 O. W. R. 515; In re Lorrimar em parte Constable 
 (1890), 7 Mor. 235; per Darling, J., In ex paite Barton in re Philips 
 (1900), 2 Q. B. 329 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 606 ; 7 Mans. 277. 
 
 "Ex- parte Blain in re Dean (1902), 18 T. L. R. 606. 
 
 'Ex parte Hinshelwood in re Ellis (1887), 4 Mor. 283. 
 
 "Ex parte Vanderlinden in re Pogose (1882). 20 Ch. D. 289; 51 
 L- J. Ch. 760. 
 
 'Ex parte Kirkwood in re Mason (1879), 11 Ch. D. 724. contrast 
 Ex parte Jerningham (1878), 9 Oh. D. 466; 47 L. J. Bank. 115. 
 
 10 (1884) , 9 A. C. 413 ; 53 L. J. P. C. 62. 
 
 1 (1894), A. C. 607; 63 L. J. Q. B. 802 ; 1 Mans. 467; cf. Ex parte 
 Kibble in re Haynes (1890), 7 Mor. 50. 
 
 2 In re and ex parte Yeatman (1880), 16 Ch. D. 283; Ex parte 
 Robertson in re Morton (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 733; 44 L. J. Bank. 99; 
 Fry v. Moore (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 395 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 382 ; see In re 
 and ex parte Pratt (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 334; 53 L. J. Oh. 613 ; 1 Mor. 
 27; In re and en parte May (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 497; 53 L. J. Q. B. 
 571 ; 1 Mor. 50. 
 
 "(1903), A. C. 220. 
 
 'In re Fiddian Squire & Co. (1892), 9 Mor. 95; contrast Ex parte 
 Coates in re Skelton (1877) . 5 Ch. D. 979 ; where an adjudication had 
 been made. 
 
606 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Defects in 
 
 bankruptcy 
 
 notices. 
 
 Notice in 
 
 wrong 
 
 gazette. 
 
 Section 84 is an immaterial one an affidavit may not be required 5 . 
 Objection on this ground will not be allowed to be 
 raised for the first time on appeal 6 . 
 
 See as to compliance with the rules on appeal, 
 Ex parte Spanish Corporation, re Victoria 7 , Ex parte 
 Rosenthal, re Dickinson*. 
 
 Where for the first time a substantial objection is 
 taken to proceedings on appeal the appellant may be 
 allowed his costs of appeal, but not those of the hearing 
 below 9 . 
 
 The English practice with respect to procedure on 
 bankruptcy notices or debtor's summonses is very- 
 strict, for errors in the sum claimed' to be due and 
 other matters are seldom considered as other than 
 defects of substance 10 . 
 
 Where by inadvertence a notice had not been pub- 
 lished in the Canada Gazette until after inspectors had 
 been appointed and the assets sold, Holmested, E., 
 directed an advertisement to be published in the 
 Canada Gazette giving notice of the receiving order 
 and of all that had taken place subsequent thereto, and 
 appointing a time for a further meeting to consider 
 and confirm what had been done, and also appointing 
 a further day for sending in claims if any 11 . 
 
 Where an authorized assignment was made under 
 a name which included unauthorized initials, the court 
 in Quebec has ordered the correction of the papers, as a 
 formal defect 12 . 
 
 "In re and ex parte Ritso (1883), '22 Oh. D. 529; 52 L. J. Bank. 
 535. 6 S. C. 
 
 ' (1894), 1 Q. B. 259; 63 L. J. Q. B. 161. 
 
 ° (1882), 20 Ch. D. 315, 318, 319; 51 L. J. Ch. 736; cf. on com- 
 pliance with directory rules, In re and ex parte Whitnall (1882). 20 
 Oh. D. 438 ; In re and ex parte Yeatman, supra; In re and ex parte 1 
 Davis (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 526; 41 L. J. Bank. 69. 
 
 "In re 0. C. 8. (1904) , 2 K. B. 161 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 585; 11 Mans. 
 122. 
 
 10 See In re Collier ex parte Dan Rylands. Ltd. (1891), 8 Mor. 80; 
 In re a Debtor (1908), 2 K. B. 684, 688, 689, 690; In re O. O. 8. 
 (1904), supra; In re Miller (1893), 10 Mor. 183; In re Wenham ex 
 parte Battams (1900), 2 Q. B. 698; 69 L. J. Q. B 803 ; 7 Mans. 309; 
 In re Bates ex parte Lindsey (1887), 4 Mor. 192; In re and ex parte 
 Johnson (1883), 25 Ch. D. 112: 53 L. J. Oh. 309; Ea> parte Gibson in 
 re Low (1895), 1 Q. B. 734; 64 L. J. Q. B. 362; 2 Mans. 169. 
 
 11 In re Excelsior Dairy Machinery Limited (1920) , 19 O. W. N. 
 292; 1 C. B. R. 388, ana see In re White (1920), 19 O. W. N. 26 
 (Orde, J.). 
 
 "In re Paquette, Ltd. (1921), 1 C. B. R 445 (Delisle, R.). 
 
 Wrong 
 initials. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. GO? 
 
 85. For all or any of the purposes of this Act, section 8 5 
 an incorporated company may act by any of who may 
 its officers or employees authorized in that^^^ aUons 
 behalf, a firm may act by any of its members, f u ™ s ti ^ d 
 and a lunatic may act by his committee or UE 
 curator or by the guardian or curator of his 
 property. 
 
 Cross References Act: Proceedings by or against a firm, 70(2) ; 
 limited partnerships, 76. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Effect of K. O. against firm, 04; 
 liability of limited partner, 95 ; affidavit by corporation, 32. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts, 1914, s. 149; (1883), s. 
 
 148. 
 
 Section 85 is given in the form in which it was 
 enacted by section 48 of The' Bankruptcy Act Amend- 
 ment Act, 1921 1 . It is difficult to see why the words 
 "incorporated company" should have been substituted 
 for the word "corporation." "Corporation" is de- 
 fined in section 2(a). 
 
 Under the English Act and under the previous sec- 
 tion the authorization had to be under the seal of the 
 company 2 . 
 
 A company may grant a general authority to an 
 officer to present petitions and take proceedings in 
 futuro in respect of acts of bankruptcy which may not 
 have arisen at the time when the authority was given, 3 
 for this section is to be given a liberal construction" ; 
 but if the authority given contemplates only the pres- 
 entation of a pe.tition on a then existing state of facts 
 it will not be authority under which the officer can pre- 
 
 1 The previous section read : 85. For all or any of the purposes of 
 this Act, a corporation may act by any of its officers authorized in that 
 behalf under the seal of the corporation, a firm may act by any of its 
 members, and a lunatic may act by his committee or by the guardian or 
 curator of his property. 
 
 2 Under that Act it was held that the resolution of the Board of 
 Directors delegating its authority to the " officer " in question need not 
 be under seal; provided the seal is affixed to the authority: In re 
 MidgUy (1913), 108 L. T. 45. See as to when a clerk mi ht be an 
 
 officer" under the English Act, In re Tompkins & Co. (1901), 1 K. B. 
 4(6; i0 L. J. K. B. 223; 8 Mans. 132. 
 
 H T! 7 S re ° DeUor < No - 28 of 1917 ) (1917), 2i K. B. 808; (1917), 
 a. B. fi. 235. The form used is set out in the report of this case. 
 4 Per McCardie, J., In re a Debtor (1917) , 2 K. B. 808. 
 
008 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 86 
 
 Power of 
 directors to 
 assign pro- 
 perty of 
 company. 
 
 Power of 
 partner to 
 make assign- 
 ment on 
 behalf of 
 firm. 
 
 Unincor- 
 porated 
 companies. 
 
 Committee 
 and curator. 
 
 sent a petition founded on a subsequent act of bank- 
 ' ruptcy 5 . 
 
 In any affidavit which is required to be filed it 
 sbould, it is submitted, be stated tbat the deponent is 
 duly authorized to take the proceedings in question 6 . 
 The provisions of this section should be strictly com- 
 plied with 7 . 
 
 An assignment by the directors of an insolvent 
 company of all the estate and property of the company 
 to trustees for the benefit of creditors is not ultra vires 
 of such directors, and does not require the formal 
 assent of the whole body of shareholders 9 . 
 
 At common law one partner can neither during the 
 existence of the partnership nor after its dissolution, 
 make an assignment of all the property and effects of 
 the firm to a trustee for the benefit of creditors 10 . 
 
 As to the practice in England in the case of un- 
 incorporated companies which may sue or be sued in 
 the name of a public officer or agent. See English Eule 
 277 1 . 
 
 Where a committee of a lunatic has been appointed 
 in one province, it would seem that a guardian or cura- 
 tor subsequently appointed in another province has no 
 locus standi to intervene in the assignment proceedings . 
 commenced by the committee in the name and on behalf 
 of the lunatic 2 . 
 
 Certain pro- 
 visions to 
 bind Crown. 
 
 86. Save as provided in this Act, the provisions 
 of this Act relating to the remedies against 
 the property of a debtor, the priorities of 
 debts, the effect of a composition or scheme 
 
 6 In re a Debtor (1915), 1 K. B. 287 ; 84 L. J. K. B. 254; 1 H. B. 
 It. 18. 
 
 "See In re and ex parte Torkington (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 298; In re 
 and ex parte Lowenthal (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 324; 43 L. J. Bank. 83. 
 
 ' In re Hodges (1873) , L. R. 8 Oh. 204 ; 42 h. J. Bank. 56. 
 
 Whiting v. Hovey (1887), 14 S. C. R. 515. especially per Gywnne, 
 J., at 531-4. 
 
 10 Cameron v, Stevenson (1862), 12 TJ. C. C. P. 389; and per 
 Spraggc, V.C., in Stevenson v. Brown (1863), 9 U. C. L. J., O. S., 110. 
 
 'And see In re Collier ex parte Dan Ryldhds, Ltd. (1891), 8 Mor. 
 SO; 64 U T. 742; In re Tovey (1910), 26 T. L. R. 456; and see The 
 Bankruptcy Act, s. 76. 
 
 2 See In re R. 8. A. (1901), 2 K. B. 32; 70 L. J. K. B. 475; 8 
 Mans. 164. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 609 
 
 of arrangement, and the effect of a dis- section se 
 charge, shall bind the Crown. 
 
 Cross References Act: Exception in favor of the Crown, 61(1) ; 
 remedies against the property of a debtor, 6(1), 7, 11(1) (3) (10) ; 
 13(12) (19); 61(1) (2) (3) (4) ; 52(5); priorities of debts, 11(1) 
 (3) (10) ; 13(16), 51, 52; the effect of a composition or scheme of 
 arrangement, 13(12) (190 ; the effect of a discharge, 61. 
 
 Analogous Legislation : English Acts, 1914, s. 151 ; 1883, s. 150. 
 
 There is no provision similar to this in The Wind- 
 ing-up Act. The section does not say that the effect 
 of an extension shall bind the Crown. 
 
 The general rule with respect to the Crown as given crown not 
 in Bacon's Abridgment 3 is "that where an Act of Par-^ ™^™^ 88 
 liament is made for the public good, the advancement 
 of religion and justice, and to prevent injury and 
 wrong, the King shall be bound by such Act, though 
 not particularly named therein ; but where a statute is 
 general, and thereby any prerogative, right, title, or 
 interest is divested or taken from the King, in such 
 case the King shall not be bound, unless the statute is 
 made by express terms to extend to him'". The rule 
 is one of universal application and perhaps not un- 
 reasonable, when it is considered that, after all, it 
 only means that the, interests of individuals are to be 
 postponed to the interests of the community . 
 
 Were there no legislation such as section 88, the Eft ect of 
 Crown as a simple contract creditor in right of the 8 | c ^ o ^ n 
 Dominion 6 , or of the Province 7 , as the case might be. Crown as a 
 would be entitled to. payment in priority over other credltor " 
 creditors of equal degree 8 in spite of the provisions of 
 
 s 7th ed., p. 462. 
 
 4 In view of the strictness with which the statutes purporting to 
 limit the rights of the Crown are read it may be doubted .whether this 
 section binds the Crown in the right of the province, and see The Inter- 
 pretation Act, R. S. C. 1906, c. 1, s. 16. 
 
 'Commissioners of Taxation for N. 8. W. v. Palmer (1907), A. C. 
 1<9; 76 L. J. p. c. 41 ; 14 Mans. 106. 
 
 'The Queen v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (1885) , 11 S. C. R. 1. 
 Liquidators of the Maritime Bank of Canada v. Reeewer-General 
 °1 New Brunswick (1892), A. C. 437, affirming (1888), 17 S. C. R. 657. 
 . C ' Whenever th e right of the Crown and the right of a subject 
 with respect to the payment of a debt of equal degre.. come into com- 
 petition the Crown's right prevails ; and this is so whether the debt is 
 r Te ^ or « f specialty or of simple contract. See per James, L.J., 
 J» re Henley & Co. (1878), 9 Ch. D 469, at 481. 
 
 n.c— 39 
 
610 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 87 section 51(4), which directs that, subject to the pro- 
 visions of the Act, all debts proved in the bankruptcy 
 or under the assignment shall be paid pari passu* for 
 the prerogative of the Crown, where it has not been 
 limited by local law 10 or statute, is as extensive in Can- 
 ada as in Great Britain 1 . 
 
 It is probable that the provisions of section 52(5), 
 respecting the disclaimer of leases, bind the Crown 2 
 for the whole group of sections which deal with the 
 taking of the property out of the bankrupt and vesting 
 it in the trustee are to be looked at as one homogeneous 
 whole, and treated as provisions relating to remedies 
 against the. property of a debtor 3 . 
 
 Effect of 
 section on 
 rights of 
 Crown as 
 lessor. 
 
 Barristers, 
 advocates 
 and counsel. 
 
 1\> be officers 
 of the court. 
 
 87 (1) All persons who are barristers, solicitors 
 or advocates of any court in any province 
 may practise as barristers, solicitors and 
 advocates in the courts exercising bank- 
 ruptcy jurisdiction under this Act in any 
 or in all of the provinces. 
 
 (2) All persons who may practise as barristers, 
 solicitors or advocates in the courts exercis- 
 ing bankruptcy jurisdiction under this Act 
 shall be officers of such courts. 
 
 Cross References Act: Courts of Bankruptcy and Appeal Courts 
 of Bankruptcy, 63. 
 
 s 
 
 Advocates and barristers of one province who take 
 cases in Bankruptcy in another province will require 
 to be familiar with those differences in local law which 
 are a feature of Bankruptcy jurisprudence in Canada. 
 
 Commissioners of Taxation for N. S. W. v. Palmer (1907) , A. C. 
 179 ; 76 L. J. P. C. 41 ; 14 Mans. 106. As to the "collection " of taxes 
 siee s. 51(6). 
 
 10 The prerogative of the Crown in right of the province may be 
 limited or denned 'by provincial law such as the two Codes of Lower 
 Canada : Exchange Bank of Canada v. The Queen (1886) , 11 A. C. 157 ; 
 and see per Gwynne, dis., in Liquidators of the Maritime Bank of 
 Canada v. Receiver-General of New Brunswick, supra. 
 
 1 Liquidators of the Maritime Bank of Canada v. Receiver-General 
 of New Brunswick jsupra; The Queen v. Bank of Nova Scotia, supra. 
 
 2 See In re Thomas e® parte Commissioners of. Woods and Forests 
 (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 380; 57 L. J. Q. B. 574; 5 Mor. 209. 
 
 'Per Willes, J., In re Thomas ex parte Commissioners of Woods 
 and Forests, supra. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 611 
 
 Persons who are officers of the Courts of Bank- sections 
 
 ruptcy are subject to the disciplinary powers of those 88 ' 88a 
 courts. 
 
 88. Nothing in the provisions of this Act shall Ris^ts of 
 interfere with, or restrict the rights and a 
 privileges conferred on banks and banking 
 corporations by The Bank Act. 
 
 Cross References Act: Bank denned, -{I). 
 
 The extent to which The Bankruptcy Act applies to 
 banks may 'be determined by the definitions given to 
 the words "debtor," "person" and "corporation." 
 See sections 2(a), 2(aa), 2(h) and The Interpretation 
 Act, R. S. C. 1906, c. 1, ss. 33, 34(20). 
 
 88a. Where by this Act any body of persons is where body 
 given power or authority to permit, consent j£dcourt s 
 or approve, and the court is given like power sjven 
 or authority alternatively, or otherwise than powers, court 
 on appeal, and such body of persons has been*"-^* 1 * 
 constituted or convened, the court shall not action - 
 act except upon satisfactory proof of prior 
 application to such body of persons and its 
 refusal of such application or its omission 
 to announce its conclusion thereon within 
 what the court shall deem, according to the 
 circumstances, a reasonable time. 
 
 Cross References Act: Inspectors, 43 ; permission of inspectors 
 required by trustee, 20(1), 21; duty of inspectors' when composition, 
 13(3) (6); trustee may apply to court for directions 1 . 18 (d) ; creditor 
 may apply to court, 35. 
 
 This section was enacted by section 49 of The Bank- 
 ruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921. It appears to put 
 the court in the position of an appellate body to the 
 inspectors. See In re North Eastern Insurance Co. 
 Lim, (1916), H. B. E. 154; 85 L. J. C. H. 751; In re 
 Consolidated Diesel Engine Mfrs. (1915), 1 Ch. 192; 
 &L.J. C.H.325. 
 
612 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 PART VIII. 
 
 Section 89 
 
 Bankruptcy 
 
 offences. 
 
 Fraudulent 
 debtors. 
 
 Bankruptcy Offences. 
 
 89. Any person who has been adjudged bank- 
 rupt or in respect of whose estate a receiv- 
 ing order has been made, or who has made 
 an authorized assignment under this Act, 
 shall in each of the cases following be guilty 
 of an indictable offence and liable to a fine 
 ' not exceeding one thousand dollars or to a 
 term not exceeding two years' imprison- 
 ment or to both such fine and such imprison- 
 ment. 
 
 (a) If he does not to the best of his know- 
 ledge a'nd belief fully and truly discover 
 to the trustee all his property, real and 
 personal, and how and to whom and for 
 what consideration and when he disposed 
 of any part thereof, except such part as 
 has been disposed of in the ordinary way 
 of his trade (if any) or laid out in the 
 ordinary expense of his family, unless he 
 proves that he had no intent to defraud ; 
 
 (b) If he does not deliver up to the trustee, 
 or as he directs, all such part of his real 
 and personal property as is in his custody 
 or under his control, and which he is 
 required by law to deliver up, unless he 
 proves that he had no intent to defraud; 
 
 (c) If he does not deliver up to the trustee, 
 or as he directs, all books, documents, 
 papers and writing in his custody or 
 under his control relating to his property 
 or affairs, unless he proves that he had no 
 intent to defraud ; 
 
 (d) If after the presentation of a bank- 
 ruptcy petition against him or within six 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 613 
 
 months next before such presentation or section so 
 if after making an authorized assignment - 
 or within six months next before the date 
 of making thereof, he conceals any part 
 of his property to the value of fifty dol- 
 lars or upwards or conceals any debt due 
 to or from him, unless he proves that he 
 had no intent to defraud ; 
 
 (e) If after the presentation of a bank- 
 ruptcy petition against him or within six 
 months next before such presentation or 
 if after making an authorized assignment 
 or within six months next before the date, 
 of making thereof, he fraudulently re- 
 moves any part of his property to the 
 value of fifty dollars or upwards ; 
 
 (/) If he makes any material omission in 
 any statement relating to his affairs, un- 
 less he proves that he had no intent to 
 defraud ; 
 
 (g) If, knowing or believing that a false 
 debt has been proved by any person r 
 
 under the bankruptcy or authorized as- 
 signment, he fails for the period of a 
 month to inform the trustee thereof ; 
 
 (h) If, after the presentation of a bank- 
 ruptcy petition against him or after he 
 makes an authorized assignment, he pre- 
 vents the production of any book, docu- 
 ment, paper or writing, affecting or relat- 
 ing to his property or affairs, unless he 
 proves that he had no intent to conceal the 
 state of his affairs or to defeat the law ; 
 
 (0 If, after the presentation of a bank- 
 ruptcy petition against him or within six 
 months next before such presentation or 
 if after making an authorized assignment 
 or within six months next before the date 
 of making thereof, he conceals, destroys, 
 mutilates, or falsifies, or is privy to the 
 concealment, destruction, mutilation or 
 
614: THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 89 falsification of . any book or document 
 
 affecting or relating' to his property or 
 affairs, unless he proves that he had no 
 intent to conceal the state of his affairs or 
 to defeat the law ; 
 
 (j) If, after the presentation of a bank- 
 ruptcy petition against him or within six 
 months next before such presentation or 
 if after making an authorized assignment 
 or within six months next before the date 
 of making thereof, he makes or is privy 
 to the making of any false entry in any- 
 book or document affecting or relating to 
 his property or affairs, unless he proves 
 that he had no intent to conceal the state 
 of his affairs or to defeat the law; 
 
 (k) If, after the presentation of a bank- 
 ruptcy petition against him or within six 
 months next before such presentation or 
 if after the making of an authorized 
 assignment by him or within six months 
 next before the date of making thereof, 
 he fraudulently parts with, alters or 
 makes any omission in, or is privy to the 
 fraudulently parting with, altering or 
 making any omission in, any document 
 affecting or relating to his property or 
 affairs ; 
 
 (Z) If, after the presentation of a bank- 
 ruptcy petition against him or after the 
 making of an authorized assignment by 
 him or at any meeting of his creditors 
 within six months next before such pre- 
 sentation or assignment, he attempts to 
 account for any part of his property by 
 fictitious losses or expenses; 
 
 (m) If, within six months next before the 
 presentation of a bankruptcy petition 
 against him or next before the date of the 
 making of an authorized assignment by 
 him, he, by any false representation or 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. G15 
 
 other fraud, has obtained any property section 89 
 on credit and has not paid for the same ; ~ 
 
 {%) If, within six months next before the pre- 
 sentation of a bankruptcy petition against 
 him or next before the date of the making 
 of an authorized assignment by him he 
 obtains, under the false pretense of carry- 
 ing on business and, if a trader, of dealing 
 in the ordinary way of his trade, any pro- 
 perty on credit and has not paid for the 
 same, unless he proves that he had no 
 intent to defraud ; 
 
 (o) If within six months next before the 
 presentation of a bankruptcy petition 
 against him, or next before the date of 
 the making of an authorized assignment 
 by him or after the presentation of a 
 bankruptcy petition against him or the 
 making of an authorized assignment by 
 him he pawns, pledges or disposes of any 
 property. which he has obtained on credit 
 and has not paid for, unless in the case of 
 a trader such pawning, pledging or dis- 
 posing is in the ordinary way of his trade 
 and unless in any case he proves that he 
 had no intent to defraud ; 
 
 (p) If he is guilty of any false representa- 
 tion or other fraud for the purpose of. 
 obtaining the consent of his creditors or 
 any of them to an agreement with refer- 
 ence to his affairs or to his bankruptcy ; 
 
 (q) If he knowingly makes or causes to be 
 made, either directly or indirectly, or 
 through any agency whatsoever, any false 
 
 - statement in writing, with intent that it 
 shall be relied upon respecting the finan- 
 cial condition or means or ability to pay 
 of himself or any other person, firm or 
 corporation in whom or in which he is 
 interested, or for whom or for which he 
 is acting, for the purpose of procuring in 
 
616 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 section 89 a ny form whatsoever, either the delivery 
 
 of personal property, the payment of cash, 
 the making of a loan, or credit, the exten- 
 sion of a credit, the discount of any ac- 
 count receivable, or the making, accept- 
 ance, discount or endorsement of a bill 
 of exchange, cheque, draft or promissory 
 note, either for the benefit of himself or 
 such person, firm or corporation ; 
 (r) If he, knowing that a false statement in 
 writing has been made respecting the 
 financial condition or means or ability to 
 pay of himself or any other person, firm 
 or corporation in whom or in which he is 
 interested or for whom or for which he is 
 acting, procures upon the faith thereof, 
 either for the benefit of himself or such 
 person, firm or corporation, any of the 
 benefits mentioned in the preceding para- 
 graph. 
 
 Cross References Act: Order of court for prosecution, 93 ; power 
 of court to commit for trial, 95(1) (2) ; method of framing indictment, 
 95(3) ; only one trial, 95(4) ; discharge no bar to criminal proceedings, 
 94 p other offences of debtor, 90, 91; property defined, 2(dd) ; property 
 divisible among creditors, 25; statement of affairs', 54(1) ; false claim 
 by creditor, 92 ; failure to keep proper books, 91 ; six months in, 
 < 89(f) (/) (fc) ; to be read two years in certain cases, 91(3) ; presenta- 
 
 tion of petition, 4(1) (4) ; making of A. Ai, 9; proof of the making of a 
 receiving order and of facts stated in notices, 77(3) (4). 
 
 Cross References Rules: Presentation of petition, 76. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: To ss. 89(a) to (p) English Act, 1914, 
 ss. 154(1) to (16). 
 
 To s. 89(g), Criminal Code, 1906, s. 407a, as enacted by 1913, c. 13, 
 s. 16. 
 
 To ss. 89(d) (e), Criminal Code, 1906, c. 146, s. 417(a). 
 
 To ss. 89(*) (/) (7c) (I), Criminal Code (1906), c. 146, ss. 413, 415, 
 418 ; Winding Up Act, 1906, c. 144, s. 139. 
 
 To ss. 89 (to) (n). Criminal Code, 1906, c. 146, =. 405, and s. 405o, 
 as enacted by 1908, c. 18,. s. 6. 
 
 Sec. 89(a). The disclosure called for by 89(a) is not limited to 
 
 property in the possession of the bankrupt at the time 
 of the bankruptcy. It extends to dealings which have 
 not been in the ordinary way of trade, e.g. fraudulent 
 dealings which have occurred even five years before 
 his bankruptcy 8 . Qucere whether there can be an 
 
 8 2?. v. Michell (1880), 50 L. J. M. C. 76. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 61? 
 
 offence against section 89(a) before the conclusion of section 89 
 the examination of the bankruptcy 9 . 
 
 It is evidence that the debtor had no intent to Section 89 
 defraud under section 89(a) (b)(d)(f) that at a pri- (a)WW (/) ' 
 vate meeting of his creditors he disclosed all his pro- 
 perty 10 . See under The Insolvent Act of 1875 on the 
 question of the retention and concealment of property, 
 In re Russell 1 . 
 
 Semble the words "any part of his property" in Sec. 89(e). 
 section 89(e) include property which has been his, 
 which remains in his possession, and the title to which 
 so far as parted with at all has only been parted with 
 in such a way as to leave it divisible amongst his credi- 
 tors in the event of bankruptcy 2 . 
 
 Sections 89(w), 89(n) and 80(o) should be com- Sections 
 pared with one another and with section 154(13) (14) 89(m)(n)(o) - 
 (15) of the English Act. It would seem that an offence 
 can be committed under 89 (m)(n) only in the period 
 covered by the six months next before the presentation 
 of the petition or the making of an authorized assign- 
 ment; and that a debtor who by any false representa- 
 tion or other fraud obtains property on credit after 
 the presentation of the petition or the making of the 
 authorized assignment cannot be convicted under sec- 
 tion 89(m). 
 
 To satisfy the words of 89(m) there must be some See. S9<m). 
 active fraud on the part of the bankrupt similar to the 
 making of a false representation, not simply the pur- 
 chase of goods when he knows that he is- not able to pay 
 for them 3 . False representation in 89 (m) means 
 fraudulent representation, that is to say a false repre- 
 sentation knowing it to be false 4 . 
 
 'R. v. Nash (1864) , 4 B. & S. 935. 
 
 10 R. v. Wiseman (1902), 9 Mans. 12. 
 
 '(1882), 7 0. A. R. 777. , 
 
 * R - v - Humphries (1904), 2 K. B. 89; explaining R. v. Creese 
 (1874) , L. iR. 2 C. C. R. 105, where there had been an assignment to a 
 trustee for the benefit of the debtor's creditors, the question being 
 whether the property assigned was the property of the debtor or of the 
 trustee. 
 
 'Per MeUish, L.J,. In ex parte Brett in re Hodgson (1875), 1 Ch. 
 B a aDd S6e P6r Adam Wilson J -' In re Garrait (1869), 28 U. C. 
 'R. v. Cherry (1871), 12 Cox C. C. 32. 
 
618 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 90 
 Sec. 89 (n). 
 
 Section 
 89(n)(o). 
 
 .Sec. 89(o). 
 
 Iii a prosecution under 89 (m) it must be shown that 
 the vendor parted with the goods on the faith of the 
 false pretences 5 . Semble a broker may be guilty of an 
 offence under 89 (n) if he represents that he is buying 
 for. a principal when there is no principal 8 . 
 
 What is aimed at in section 89(») (o) is the obtain- 
 ing of goods on credit, and then immediately selling 
 them at a loss ; for that is not in the ordinary course of 
 business 7 . These sections do not apply to a simple 
 case of buying goods on credit for shipment abroad and 
 raising money on the bills of lading; and the mode in 
 which the money so raised was applied makes no dif- 
 ference 8 . 
 
 The giving of a bill of sale covering all his stock in 
 trade to his sister for a past debt is not " pawning, 
 pledging or disposing in the ordinary way of trade" 9 , 
 and semble, such a transaction is an offence within the 
 six months mentioned in section 89 (o), even though 
 the bill of sale was given in pursuance of a promise 
 made outside that period 10 . Semble, the assigning of 
 the whole of a trader's property- to one creditor 
 reserving nothing for the other shows an "intent to 
 defraud" within section 89(c) 1 It may be that if a 
 debtor does not disclose to the trustee a transaction 
 which is an offence under section 89 (o) this will be 
 evidence from which the jury may infer that the debtor 
 had an intent to defraud when the transaction took 
 place 2 . 
 
 Undischarged 
 bankrupt 
 obtaining 
 credit. 
 
 90. Where an undischarged bankrupt or an 
 undischarged authorized assignor, — 
 (a) either alone or jointly with any other 
 person obtain credit to the extent of five 
 hundred dollars or upwards from any 
 person without informing that person that 
 
 5 Ea> parte Stallard In re Howard (1868) , L. R. 3 Ch. 408, 409». 
 
 ° R. v. Cherry, supra. 
 
 1 Per Mcllish, L.J., in Em parte Brett in re Hodgson, supra. 
 
 s Per James, L.J., in Ex parte Brett in re Hodgson, supra. 
 
 °R. v. Thomas (1870), 22 L. T. 138. 
 
 '"R. v. Thomas (1870), supra. 
 
 1 R. v. Thomas, supra. 
 
 *R. v. Bolus (1870), 23 L. T. 339. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 619 
 
 he is an undischarged bankrupt or an section 90 
 undischarged authorized assignor ; or, 
 (6) engages in any trade or business under Use of 
 a name other than that under which- he name. tlve 
 was adjudicated bankrupt or made such 
 authorized assignment without disclosing 
 to all persons with whom he enters into 
 any business transaction the name under 
 which he was adjudicated bankrupt or 
 made such authorized assignment; 
 he shall be guilty of an indictable offence 
 and liable to a fine not exceeding five hun- 
 dred dollars, or to a term not exceeding 
 one year's imprisonment, or to both such 
 fine and such imprisonment. 
 
 Cross References Act: Order by court for prosecution, 93 ; power 
 of court to commit for trial, 95(1) (2) ; method of framing indictment, 
 95(3) ; only one trial, 95(4) ; discharge no bar to criminal proceedings. 
 94; fraudulently obtaining property on credit, 89 (m). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, section 155. 
 
 The above gives section 90 as it was enacted by 
 The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act 1920 s - 
 
 It is not necessary in order to bring a case within what is 
 this section to show that there was an agreement tof?*g"*.^ 
 grant credit; there is an offence if payment should credit." 
 have been on delivery and the debtor "obtains 
 credit" by accepting the goods and not paying cash 4 . 
 "Obtains", it has been said, means getting the goods 
 and retaining them and not paying for them 5 . Credit 
 
 1 The previous section read : 
 
 90. Where an undischarged bankrupt or an undischarged authorized 
 assignor, — 
 
 (a) either alone or jointly with any other person obtains credit to Undischarged 
 the extent of fifty dollars or upwards from any person without bankrupt 
 informing that person that, he is an undischarged bankrupt or obtaining 
 an undischarged authorized assignor ; or, credit. 
 
 (6) engages in any trade or business under a name other than that-rj seo f 
 under which he was adjudicated bankrupt or made such deceptive 
 authorized assignment without disclosing to all persons with name, 
 whom he enters into any business transaction the name under 
 which he was adjudicated bankrupt or made such authorized 
 assignment ; 
 he shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable .to a fine not exceed- 
 ing five hundred dollars and to a term not exceeding one year's imprison- 
 ment, or to both such fine and such imprisonment. 
 
 'Reg. y. Peters (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 636; 55 L. J. M. G. 173. 
 Per Coleridge, C.J, in Reg. v. Juby (1887), 55 L. T. 788. 
 
'620 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 91 
 
 Five hundred 
 dollars may 
 be made up 
 of several 
 sums. 
 
 Intent to 
 defraud not 
 necessary. 
 
 Where 
 offence 
 committed. 
 
 Obtaining 
 goods by false 
 pretences. 
 
 Knowledge 
 of creditor 
 that debtor 
 undischarged 
 bankrupt. 
 
 may have been obtained within the section even when 
 security has been given for the debt, as where money is 
 obtained on the faith of a security which is not of un- 
 doubted value 6 . 
 
 The offence of obtaining credit to the extent of five 
 hundred dollars is complete when the undischarged 
 bankrupt or assignor has obtained goods to such an 
 amount as brings his credit to five hundred dollars, and 
 this whether there has been only one order and ship- 
 ment or several; for if the value of the last shipment 
 when added to the unpaid balance on the previous ship- 
 ments equals five hundred dollars credit has been 
 obtained to that amount 7 . 
 
 An intent to defraud is not an essential ingredient 
 of the offence under this section 8 . 
 
 The offence is committed where the credit was 
 obtained 9 , which may be at the place where the goods 
 are bought 10 . 
 
 To obtain goods in exchange for a cheque, on a false 
 representation that the cheque will be honoured on pre- 
 sentation is to obtain goods, and not credit by false pre- 
 tences 1 . 
 
 It has been suggested that if the creditor knew the 
 debtor was an undischarged bankrupt, though the 
 debtor did not tell him so, there will be no conviction 2 . 
 
 Bankrupt 
 failing to 
 keep proper" 
 books of 
 account. 
 
 91 (1). If any person who has on any previous 
 occasion been adjudged bankrupt or made 
 an authorized assignment or extension or 
 arrangement with his creditors, is adjudged 
 bankrupt, makes an authorized assignment 
 or secures or asks for a composition, exten- 
 sion or arrangement with his creditors, he 
 
 55 L. J, M. 0. 173; 
 J. M. C. 124 ; 1 Mans. 
 
 6 B. v. Fryer (1912), 7 Cr. A. C. 183. 
 
 'Beg. v. Peters (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 636 
 Kes-.-v. Juhy (1887), 55 L. T. 788. 
 
 "Beg. v. Dyson (1894), 2 Q. B. 176; 63 L. 
 283. 
 
 "Beg. v. Peters, supra. 
 
 10 Beg. v. Dawson,. 59 L. T. 932. 
 
 1 See Bex v. Cosnett (1901), 20 Cox 0. 0. 6; and see where money 
 and not credit was obtained: Bex. v. Coyne (1905), 69 J. P. 151. 
 
 2 See In re Peel (1903), 19 T. L. K. 207, at 208. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 621 
 
 shall be guilty of an indictable offence and section 91 
 liable to a fine of one thousand dollars and 
 to one year's imprisonment if, having, dur- 
 ing the whole or any part of the two years 
 
 ' immediately preceding the date of the pre- 
 sentation of the bankruptcy petition or of 
 the making of the authorized assignment or 
 of the securing or asking for the composi- 
 tion, extension or arrangement, been en- 
 gaged in any trade or business, he has not 
 kept proper books of account throughout 
 those two years or such part thereof, as 
 aforesaid, and if so engaged at the date of 
 presentation of the petition or the making 
 of the assignment or the securing or asking 
 for the composition, extension or arrange- 
 ment, thereafter, whilst so engaged, up to 
 the date of the receiving order, or the mak- 
 ing of the assignment or the securing or 
 asking for the composition, extension or 
 arrangement, or has not preserved all books 
 of account so kept : Provided that a person 
 who has not kept or has not preserved such 
 books of account shall not be convicted of an 
 offence under this section if his unsecured 
 liabilities at the date of the making of the 
 receiving order, or the assignment or of the 
 securing or asking for the composition, 
 extension or arrangement did not exceed 
 five hundred dollars or if he proves that in 
 the circumstances in which he traded or 
 carried on business the omission was honest 
 and excusable. 
 
 (2) For the purposes of this section, a person Proper books 
 shall be doomed not to have kept proper aefined Unt 
 books of account if he has not kept such 
 books or accounts as are necessary to exhibit 
 or explain his transactions and financial 
 position in his trade or business, including a 
 book or books containing entries from day 
 to day in sufficient detail of all cash received 
 
622 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 91 
 
 Destruction, 
 mutilation or 
 fraudulent 
 dealings with 
 books. 
 
 Being a 
 trader fails 
 to keep 
 accounts. 
 
 and cash paid, and, where the trade or busi : 
 ness has involved dealings in goods, also 
 accounts of all goods sold and purchased, 
 and statements of annual and other stock- 
 takings. 
 (3) Paragraphs (i), (j) and (k) of section 
 eighty-nine of this Act (which relate to the 
 destruction, mutilation, and falsification 
 and other fraudulent dealings with books 
 and documents), shall, in their application 
 to such books as aforesaid, have effect as if 
 "two years next before the presentation of 
 the bankruptcy petition" and "two years 
 next before the date of the making of an 
 authorized assignment" were substituted 
 for the time mentioned in those paragraphs 
 as the time prior to such presentation or 
 making within which the acts or omissions 
 specified in those paragraphs constitute an 
 offence. 
 
 Cross References Act: Omission to keep usual and proper books 
 of account, 59(6) ; order by court for prosecution, 93; power of court 
 to commit for trial, 95(1) (2) ; method of framing indictment, 95(3) ; 
 only one trial, 95(4) ; discharge no bar to criminal proceedings, 94; 
 computation of time, 82. 
 
 Cross References Rules: Computation of time, 148-151. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. 158. 
 
 The word "composition" appears to have been 
 omitted from the second and third lines of section 
 91(1). As to the date when the Act came into force 
 and the question of retrospectivity, see notes to sec- 
 tion 98. Section 91 has points in common with sec- 
 tion 417(c) of the Criminal Code 1906, c. 146, which 
 reads : 
 
 417. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a 
 fine of eight hundred dollars and to one year's imprisonment who, — 
 
 (c) being a trader and indebted to an amount exceeding one 
 thousand dollars, is unable to pay his creditors in full, and has 
 not, for five years next before such inability, kept such books of 
 account as, according to the usual course of any trade or business 
 in which he may have been engaged, are necessary to exhibit or 
 explain his transactions, unless he be able to account for his losses 
 to the satisfaction of the court or judge and to show that the 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 623 
 
 absence of such books was not intended to defraud his creditors: Section 93 
 55-56 Vic. c. 29, s. 368; 4 Edw. VII. c. 7, s. 1. 
 
 92. If any creditor, or any person claiming to False claim, 
 be a creditor, in any bankruptcy proceed- etc - 
 ings, or in any proceedings pursuant to sec- 
 tion thirteen of this Act, for obtaining a 
 composition, extension or arrangement of a 
 debtor's debts or of his affairs, or in any 
 proceedings under an authorized assign- 
 ment, wilfully and with intent to defraud 
 makes any false claim, or any proof, de- 
 claration or statement of account, which is 
 untrue in any material particular, he shall 
 be guilty of an indictable offence, and shall 
 on conviction on indictment be liable to 
 imprisonment with or without hard labour 
 for a term not exceeding one year. 
 
 Cross References Act: Proof of debts, 45 ; proof by secured 
 "creditors, 46; failure of debtor to notify trustee of false claim, 89(g). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acti, 1914, s. 160. 
 
 93. Where an authorized trustee reports to any order by 
 court exercising jurisdiction under this Act^ u ^° t r ion 
 that, in his opinion, a debtor in respect of °* report 
 whose estate a receiving order has been made ° 
 or who has made an authorized assignment 
 has been guilty of any Offence under this 
 Act, or where the court is satisfied, upon the 
 representation of any creditor or inspector 
 that there is ground to believe that the 
 debtor has been guilty of any such offence, 
 the court shall, if it appears to the court 
 that there is a reasonable probability that 
 the debtor will be convicted, order that the 
 debtor be prosecuted for such offence. Pro- 
 vided that it shall not be obligatory on the 
 court, in the absence of any application by 
 the trustee for such an order, to make an 
 
624 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 93 
 
 Order is 
 obtained 
 ex parte. 
 
 order under this section for the prosecution 
 of an offence unless it appears to the court 
 that the circumstances are such as to render 
 a prosecution desirable. 
 
 Cross References Act: Power of court to commit for trial, 
 95(1) ; liability of debtor after he 'has obtained his discharge or after 
 approval of the composition, extension or Scheme of Arrangement, 94; 
 offences of debtor under the Act, 89, 90, 91; cf. 54(6), 56(2) ; only one 
 prosecution for an offence under the Act, 95(4). 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Bankruptcy Acts, 1914, sec- 
 tions 161, 165 ; 1883, 164, 166 ; The Debtor's Act, 1869 ; 32 and 33 Vic. 
 e. 62, ss. 16, 17, 18 ; Dominion Winding Up Act, R. S. C. 1906, c. 144, 
 s. 138. 
 
 Analysis op Notes. 
 
 Order is obtained ex parte. 
 Appeal. 
 
 Principles on which court to act. 
 Form of order. 
 
 Order not condition precedent to prosecution but important for 
 costs. 
 
 Action for malicious prosecution. 
 In case of composition, etc. 
 
 The order is an ex parte order* on application to 
 the court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy in which 
 the matter arises 4 . It may be given before the bank- 
 rupt has been examined 5 . Any representation to the 
 court under this section by a creditor or inspector must 
 be in writing, supported by proper evidence and filed 
 with the proceedings 6 . The order may be made hot 
 only against the debtor but also against his accom- 
 plice and the trustee 7 , and the person against whom it 
 
 3 In re and em parte Marsden (1876), L. R. 2 Oh. 786; 45 L. J. 
 Bank. 141. Under the English Bankruptcy Act of 1861 the procedure 
 was different. The court exercised a judicial discretion in directing a 
 prosecution, and the person accused was! then entitled to be heard in 
 opposition to it. Being so entitled he had a right to appeal and the 
 consequence was that the prosecution could not proceed until the 
 Court of Appeal had decided in favour of the prosecution. This was 
 found to be a very inconvenient course and was altered by the Act of 
 1869. Per Mellish, L.J., In ex parte Brown in re Appleby (1876), 
 L. R. 2 Ch. 799, 801. 
 
 4 Per James, L.J., In re and ex parte Dempsey (1873), Ii. R. 8 Ch. 
 076, on the meaning of the words " any court." 
 
 5 In re and ex parte Levi (1865), 34 L. J. Bank, 23. 
 
 'In re and ex parte Leonard (1874), L. R. 19 Eq. 269; 44 L. J. 
 Bank. 80. 
 
 7 Ex parte Brown in re Appleby (1876), L. R. 2 Ch. D. 789; 45 
 L. J. Bank. 115; In re Orbetl ex parte Evans (1880), 43 L. T. 575; 44 
 L. T. 762'. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 625 
 
 has been made has no right to be heard against it ; s nor section 93 
 in England is he a "person aggrieved" who may" 
 appeal against it . 
 
 But the order made may be appealed against by the Appeal. 
 trustee 10 or the creditor 1 , and in a proper case an order 
 giving leave to prosecute nunc pro tunc may be sub- 
 stituted on appeal 2 . It may be reviewed, rescinded or 
 varied 3 . 
 
 A prosecution should not be directed on the ground Principles 
 of mere suspicion, but if there is reasonable evidence court to act. 
 of the guilt of the debtor the court need not decide 
 whether the evidence is likely to convince a jury 4 . The 
 order may be made on the report of the trustee alone 
 if the court is satisfied from it that there is reasonable 
 probability of a conviction 5 . Where a debtor has com- 
 mitted an offence against section 89(e) by fraudulently 
 removing his property, the fact that the trustee has 
 recovered it is no reason for refusing to direct a pro- 
 secution 6 . If the trustee reports to the court that in 
 Ms opinion the debtor has been guilty of an offence 
 under the -Act, the court should decide whether the 
 debtor ought to be prosecuted ; and this independently 
 of whether the trustee asks for an order directing a 
 prosecution or not 7 . 
 
 1 In re and etc parte Alarsden, supra; Ex parte Brown in re 
 Appleby, supra 
 
 'In re and, ex parte Harsden, supra; Exi parte Brown in re 
 Appleby, supra; In re Orbell ex parte Evans, supra; see, however, where 
 the debtor had been served with notice of appeal by the trustee, In re and 
 ex parte Dempsey, supra. 
 
 I' 1 re a nd ex parte Dempsey, supra; In re Dunn em parte O. R. 
 (1902), 1 K. B. 107; 71 L. J. K. B. 83 ; 9 Mans. 1; Stephens ex parte 
 The Trustee (1885), 2 Mor. 20. 
 
 J See In re Burden ex parte Wood (1888) , 21 Q. B. D. 24 ; 57 L. J. 
 Q- B. 570 ; 5 Mor. 166. 
 
 ! Exi parte Priestly in re Stanlake £ Son (1878), 10 Ch. D. 774; 48 
 L. J. Bank. 48. 
 
 676 SPer JameS ' LJ '' In re and e3> pa ' te Dem P selJ ( 1873 )> L - R - 8 Ch - 
 
 'Ex parte Stallard in re Howard (1868), L. ;R. 3 Ch. 408; Ex 
 parte StrwMand in re Still (1862), 32 L. J. Bank. 12. 
 
 In re and ex parte Marsden (1876), L. B.. 2 Ch. 786; 45 L. J. 
 tfank. 141. 
 
 *Ex parte Monhhouse in re Ward (1879). 40 L. T. 296; and see 
 Tlttf parte The Tr ™tee (1885), 2 Mor. 20; Ex parte Priestly in 
 re Stanlake & Son, supra. 
 
 9 m' 7 " 7 ■ D """ eW parte °- R - ( 1902 ') , 1 K. B. 107 ; 71 L. J. K. B. 83 ; 
 Tk.! 118 '. . The court need not determine the question at once, S. C. 
 *"e trustee's report should be filed, S. C. 
 B.C.— 40 
 
636 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 94 
 
 Form of 
 order. 
 
 Order not 
 condition 
 precedent to 
 prosecution 
 but import- 
 ant for costs. 
 
 Action for 
 malicious 
 prosecution. 
 
 In case of 
 
 composition, 
 
 etc. 
 
 Semble, the order may recite that there is reason 
 for supposing that the bankrupt has been guilty of 
 ' ' some one or more ' ' of the offences set out in section 
 89 without specifying the particular offences 8 . The 
 order may direct the trustee to prosecute the debtor 9 . 
 
 Semble, compliance with this section is not a con- 
 dition precedent to a private prosecution 10 by a credi- 
 tor or by the trustee, but if the trustee does not first 
 apply for leave under the section he may be refused his 
 costs out of the estate even though he has the permis- 
 sion of the inspectors to prosecute 1 . In England the 
 expense of the prosecution, if one is directed, is borne 
 by the country and not by the estate 2 . 
 
 An undischarged bankrupt has a right of action 
 against his trustee in a proper case for malicious pro- 
 secution, even though he has sworn the information 
 after an order made by the court under this section 3 . 
 
 This section probably may be invoked in proceed- 
 ings, tinder a composition, extension or scheme 4 . 
 
 Criminal 
 liability . 
 after 
 
 discharge or 
 composition. 
 
 94. Where a debtor has been guilty of any 
 criminal offence, he shall not be exempt 
 from being proceeded against therefor by 
 reason that he has obtained his discharge or 
 that a composition, extension or scheme of 
 arrangement has been accepted or approved. 
 
 "In re and e® parte Levi (1865), 34 L. J. Bank. 23. 
 
 'In re and ex parte Dempsey (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 676. 
 
 10 See Ex parte Stallard in re Howard (1868), L. R. 3 Ch. 408, but 
 contrast per Baggallay, J.A., In re and ex parte Marsden (1876) , L. R. 
 2 Ch. 786 ; 45 L. J. Bank. 141. 
 
 1 Ex parte White in re Howes (1902), 2 K. B. 290; 71 L. J. K. B. 
 705; 9 Mans. 252. Semble, 1 unless an order has been obtained 
 under this section a taxing master should refuse to tax the 
 trustee's costs for a prosecution, at least where the debtor has been 
 acquitted, S. C. See where a nunc pro tune order was made on appeal, 
 the deb.tor having been convicted: Ex parte Priestly in re Stanlake & 
 Son (1878), 10 Ch. D. 774; 48 L. J. Bank. 48. 
 
 'In re and ex parte Marsden, supra; In re Orbell ex parte Evans 
 (1880). 43 L. T. 575; 44 L. T. 762; Ex parte Strickland in re Still 
 (1862), 32 L.' J. Bank. 12; Ex parte Priestly in re Stanlake & Son, 
 supra; and see English Bankruptcy Act, 1914, s. 165. 
 
 'Mittens v. Foreman (1888), 58 L. J. Q. B. 40. 
 
 *See section 13(15) and In re and ex parte Dempsey, supra. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 627 
 
 Cross References Act: Effect of discharge, 61; effect of com- Section 95 
 
 position, extension or scheme, 13(12); only one prosecution for each 
 
 offence, 95(4) ; criminal offences under the Act, 89-92, 96. 
 
 Analogous Legislation; English Acts, 1914, s. 162 1883, s. 167. 
 
 Some of the mercantile offences which are crimes 
 under the Criminal Code, E. S. C. 1906, c. 146, are 
 Obtaining Goods by False Pretences, s. 405 ; Obtaining 
 Credit by False Pretences, s. 405a, as enacted by 
 1908, c. 18, s. 6 ; Knowingly making a False Financial 
 Statement in "Writing with Intent that it be Eelied on, 
 s. 407a, as enacted by 1913, c. 13, s. 16; Destruction 
 of, Mutilation of, or False entry in Books, 413, 415, 
 418; False Prospectus, s. 414; Fraudulent Conveyance 
 or Disposition of Property, and not Keeping Proper 
 Books, 417. 
 
 It was held in 1911, that is to say there was no 
 Bankruptcy Act in force in Canada, that the section of 
 the Criminal Code equivalent to section 417 of E. S. C. 
 1906, c. 145, was in effect bankruptcy law which made 
 possible the extradition to the United States of a per- 
 son guilty of an offence against The Federal Bank- 
 ruptcy Act of that country 5 . 
 
 Where a debtor is convicted of an offence against 
 The Copyright Act, and imprisoned in default of pay- 
 ment of the fine, he is not entitled to his discharge from 
 prison on the execution, acceptance and approval of a 
 composition, for the process on which he was arrested 
 is of a criminal nature and not for a debt 6 . 
 
 95 (1) Where there is, in the opinion of the Power for 
 court, ground to believe that the bankrupt or ^ m r m i t ° for 
 any other person has been guilty of any trial, 
 offence under this Act, the court may com- 
 mit the bankrupt or such other person for 
 trial. 
 
 (2) For the purpose of committing the bank- Powers of 
 nipt or such other person for trial, the court - 
 
 v w« Tl f tone < 1911 )> 17 Can. C. C. 249, 377; and see United States 
 C n t er J} S12) - 20 0an - °- c - !. 6; In re Goodman (1916), 26 Can. 
 C C. 84, 254 ; 26 M. L. R. 537 ; 10 W. W. R. 781. 
 
 •Bit parte Graves in re Prince (1868), L. R. 3 Ch. 642. 
 
628 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 95 
 
 Substance of 
 offence 
 charged in 
 indictment. 
 
 Only one 
 prosecution. 
 
 court shall have power to take depositions, 
 bind over witnesses to appear, admit the 
 accused to bail, or otherwise. 
 
 (3) In an indictment for an offence under this 
 Act, it shall be sufficient to set forth the 
 substance of the offence charged in the 
 words of this Act specifying the offence, or 
 as near thereto as circumstances admit, with- 
 out alleging or setting forth any debt, act of 
 bankruptcy, trading, «,d judication, or any 
 proceedings in, or order, warrant or docu- 
 ment of, any court acting under this Act. 
 
 (4) Where any person is prosecuted for an 
 offence under this Act nO other prosecution 
 shall be instituted against him for the same 
 offence under any other Act. 
 
 Cross References Act: Offences by bankrupt, 89-91; ef. 54(6), 
 56(2) ; offence of creditor, 92; of. 54(2) ; of trustee, 11(14), 14(9); 
 96(6) (c) ; of other persons, 96(a) ; order for prosecution on report of 
 trustee, creditor or inspector, 93. 
 
 Analogous Legislation: English Acts, 1914, ss. 163, 164(4) ; 
 1883, ss. 165. 
 
 Section 95(1) (2) is evidently designed to enable the 
 court to commit the bankrupt or other person for trial 
 without the necessity of a preliminary enquiry before 
 a magistrate. The question arises whether this is 
 legislation respecting the constitution of courts of 
 criminal jurisdiction: or whether it does not rather 
 concern procedure in criminal matters; whether it is 
 ancillary bankruptcy legislation, or whether it can be 
 supported under section 101 of The British North 
 America Act 7 . 
 
 Power to act under section 95(1) (2') is given to the 
 Bankruptcy Court only in respect of offences under 
 The Bankruptcy Act. Bankruptcy and Mercantile 
 offences under the Criminal Code are mentioned in the 
 notes to section 94. 
 
 The provisions of s. 95(3) should be read with Part 
 
 ' See B. N. A. Act, ss. 91(27), 92(14) ; 101; In re Vancini (1904), 
 34 S. C. R. 621; Getter v. Loughrin (1911), 24 O. L. K. 18; In re 
 Board of Commerce (1920), 60 S. C. R. 456, 4S2-493. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 629 
 
 XIX. of The Criminal Code, E. S. C. 1906, c. 146, section as 
 Procedure by Indictment, particularly sections 852- 
 858, 864-5, and with E. S. C. 1906, c. 1, s. 28, The Inter- 
 pretation Act. What is meant by the last part of sec- 
 tion 95(3) is that it is unnecessary in the indictment 
 to set out the proceedings in bankruptcy 8 . 
 
 96. Any person, who, — 
 
 (a) not being an authorized trustee, adver- Pretending 
 tises or represents himself to be such; , or) tobetr «stee. 
 
 (b) being an authorized trustee, either be- Trustee 
 fore providing the 'bond required by wftw 
 section fourteen, subsection four, of this bond - 
 Act, or after providing the same but at 
 
 any time while the said bond is not in 
 force, acts as or exercises any of the pow- 
 ers of an authorized trustee ; or, 
 
 (c). having been appointed an authorized Non- 
 trustee, with intent to defraud fails to compliance - 
 observe or to perform any of the provi- 
 sions of this Act, or fails duly to do, 
 observe or perform any act or duty which 
 he may be ordered to do, observe or per- 
 form by the court, pursuant to any of the 
 provisions of this Act ; 
 shall be guilty of an indictable offence and 
 liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand 
 dollars or to a term not exceeding two years' 
 imprisonment, or to both such fine and such 
 imprisonment. 
 
 Cross References Act: Appointment of trustees, 14 ; general 
 security required from trisitees, 14 (4) -(7) ; additional security, 14(8) ; 
 anhes and powers of trustee, 17, et seq.; only one prosecution, 95(4) ; 
 other offences of trustee, 11(14), 14(9). 
 
 "Rig. v. Watkinson (1872), 12 Cox C. C. 271; see further as to the 
 practice under the corresponding English section: Reg. v. Oliver (1877), 
 W Cox c. O. 588 ; 36 L. T. 114 ; Reg. v. Knight (1878) , 14 Cox C. C. 
 wr <oc T - 801; Be » v - Pierce (1887), 16 Cox C. C. 213; 56 L. J. 
 
 9b & ^ Re9 ' v ' Nash (1864) - 9 c: ° x c - c - 434 ; 33 L - J - M - C - 94; 
 
630 
 Section 97 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 This section is as enacted by The Bankruptcy Act 
 Amendment Act 1920. 9 
 
 Penalty for 
 removing, 
 attempting 
 or counsel- 
 ling removal 
 of debtor's 
 goods 
 without 
 notice. 
 
 Pretending 
 to be trustee. 
 Trustee 
 acting with- 
 out bond. 
 
 Non- 
 compliance. 
 
 97. Any person, except the authorized trustee 
 hereinafter mentioned, who, before the 
 elapse of fifteen days after delivery to the 
 authorized trustee of the notice in writing 
 mentioned in section twenty-two, subsection 
 . three, of this Act, or in case no such notice 
 has been delivered, shall remove or attempt 
 to remove the goods or any thereof men- 
 tioned in such section and subsection out of 
 the charge or possession of the debtor or of 
 the authorized trustee or other actual cus- 
 todian of such goods, unless with the written 
 permission of the trustee, shall be guilty of 
 an indictable offence and liable to a fine not 
 exceeding five thousand dollars, or to a term 
 hot exceeding two years' imprisonment, or 
 to both such fine and such imprisonment. 
 
 This section was enacted by section 50 of The Bank- 
 ruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921. The original section 
 97 which dealt with malicious proceedings, was repealed 
 by The Bankruptcy Act Amendment Act, 1921 1 . 
 
 ° The previous section read : 
 
 96. Any person who, — 
 
 (a) not being an authorized trustee, advertises or represents himself 
 
 to be such ; or, 
 (6) being an authorized trustee, either before providing the bond 
 required by section fourteen, subsection four of this Act, or 
 after providing the same, but at any time while the said bond 
 is not in force, acts as or exercises any of the powers of an 
 authorized trustee ; or, 
 (c) having been appointed an authorized trustee fails to observe or 
 to perform any of the provisions of this Act, or fails duly to do, 
 observe or perform any act or duty which he may be ordered 
 to do, observe or perform by "the court, pursuant to any of the' 
 provisions of this Act ; 
 shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine not exceeding 
 one thousand dollars or to a term not exceeding two years' imprisonment 
 or to both such fine and such imprisonment. 
 1 That section read : 
 
 97. Any person who maliciously institutes or carries on against 
 any person who has not done or suffered any act of bankruptcy any 
 proceeding in bankruptcy under this Act shall be guilty of an indictable 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 631 
 
 98. Where any offence against this Act has been section 98 
 committed by an incorporated company Liability of 
 every officer, director or agent of the com-^™£, ror 
 pany who directs, authorizes, condones, or agent of 
 participates in the commission of the ompany - 
 offence, shall be liable to the like penalties 
 as such company and as if he had committed 
 the like offence personally, and he shall be so 
 liable cumulatively with the company and 
 with such officers, directors or agents of the 
 company as may likewise be liable here- 
 under. 
 
 Cross References Act: Bankruptcy offences, 89 ; 90, 91, 92, 96. 
 
 Section 98 as it now stands and as given above was 
 introduced by section 51 of The Bankruptcy Act 
 Amendment Act, 1921. That section for some unex- 
 plained reason repealed the previous section 98, which 
 read:— 
 
 98. This Act shall come into operation at a day to 
 be named by proclamation of the Governor-in-Council. 
 
 The effect, if any, of this repeal on the operation 
 of the Act and on sections 8(2) and 11(16) has yet to 
 be determined. 
 
 The following notes and cross references refer to 
 the original section 98. 
 
 Cross References Act: Certain acts which occurred before the 
 coming into operation of the Act not available acts of Bankruptcy, 
 8(2) (a),. provisions of 11(1) (10), applicable to certain judgments in 
 Nova Scotia and New Brunswick registered prior to coming into opera- 
 tion of the Act, 11(16). 
 
 Cross References Rules: When rules come into operation, 1. 
 Analogous Legislation: English Act, 1914, s. 169. 
 
 The Act was brought into force July 1st, 1920 10 , by 
 proclamation of the Governor-in-Council 11 , dated 31st 
 December, 1919, published in The Canada Gazette, 
 January 17th, 1920, Vol. 53, No. 29, p. 2172. 
 
 The general rule is that a statute had no retro- 
 
 f«m Ce ! nd liaWe to a fine not « x <*eding one thousand dollars or to a 
 wrm not exceeding two years imprisonment, or to both such fine and 
 sncn imprisonment. 
 
 M iQ9ft hat J S '£ say ' the Act came int0 force on the expiration of June 
 w. 1S20. See R. S. C. 1906, c. 1, s. 11. 
 
 Governor-in-Council is defined K. S. C. 1906, c. 1, s. 37(7). 
 
632 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Section 99 spective effect 1 . Qucere, whether any assistance as to 
 the intention of the legislature can be got from the fact 
 that the operation of the statute is deferred to a future 
 time 2 .. 
 
 It seems probable that The Bankruptcy Act will not 
 apply to acts and defaults of the debtor occurring prior 
 to July 1, 1920, and no proceedings can be founded on 
 them unless section 8 is read as giving an implied 
 retrospective operation to the Act in cases not men- 
 tioned in that section 5 . 
 
 Section 9 of the Act purports to make null and void' 
 all assignments of his property other than an author- 
 ized assignment made by an insolvent debtor for the 
 general benefit of his creditors. The fact that tho Act 
 contains no clause saving assignments commenced 
 under Provincial Acts before the coming into opera- 
 tion of The Bankruptcy Act may perhaps cause no 
 inconvenience if The Bankruptcy Act is held as not 
 avoiding proceedings already commenced. 
 
 Administra- 
 tion. 
 
 99. This Act shall be administered by the Minis- 
 ter of Justice. 
 
 1 Craies (Hardcastle) on Statute Law, 2nd edition, 1911, pp. 346- 
 358. The question of the retrospectivity of various sections of different 
 Bankruptcy Acts is discussed in the following cases: In re Cohen ex 
 parte O. R. (1919) , 2 K. B. 271 ; 88 L. J. K. B. 841 ; 3 H. B. R. 214 ; 
 In re Cullwick ex parte O. R. (1918), 1 K. B. 646; ST L. J. K. B. 827; 
 
 3 H. B. R. 33; Shaw v. Allen (1914), T. E. R. 631; In re Athlvmney 
 ecu parte Wilson (1898) , 2 Q. B. 547 ; 67 L. J. Q. B. 935 ; 5 Mans. 322 : 
 In re Pulborough School Board Election, Bourke. v., Nutt (1894), 1 
 Q. B. 725 ; 63 L. J. Q. B, 497 ; 1 Mans. 172 ; In re and ex parte Rogers 
 (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 438; 1 Mor. 159; In re Jecks ex parte Bailey 
 (1871), L. R. 13 Eq. 314; 41 L. J. Bank. 1; Reed v. Wiggins (1862), 
 32 h. J. C. P 131; 13 C. B. N. S. 220; Marsh v. Biggins (1850), 19 
 L. J. C. P. 297; 9 C. B. 551 ; Luokin v. Simpson (1840), 6 Bing. N. C. 
 353; Terrington v. Eargreaves (1829), 5 Bing. 489. 
 
 2 In re Athlumney ex parte Wilson (1898) , 2 Q. B. 547 ; and cases 
 there cited, and see per Mellar. J., in Ellis v. McCormick (1869), L. R. 
 
 4 Q. B. 271, 275. On the general question see Schmidt v. Ritz (1901), 
 31 S. C. R. 602; Clarkson v. Sterling (1888), 15 O. A. R. 234; Mason v. 
 Macdonald (1880), 40 U. C. Q. B. 113; of. Yale v. Tollerton (1866), 2 
 Oh. Ch. 49. 
 
 'See In re and ex parte Pratt (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 334. It was 
 ■there held that proceedings under the Act of 1883 could be founded on 
 an act of bankruptcy occurring prior to the coming into operation of the 
 Act of 1883 ; for the words " if a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy " 
 must be read "if at the time when the petition is presented the debtor 
 shall have committed an act of bankruptcy " ; and acts of bankruptcy 
 existed under the Act of 1869. See as to offences committed before the 
 Act came into force, Lucas, Tanner and Co. (1900) , 32 O. R. 1. 
 
GENERAL RULES AND FORMS UNDER 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 
 
 P. C. No. 1398. 
 AT THE GOVERNMENT HOUSE AT OTTAWA, 
 
 THUHSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 1920. 
 
 Present : 
 HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL. 
 His Excellency the Goveenoe General in Council, undee 
 
 THE AUTHORITY OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, IS PLEASED TO 
 ENACT AND PUT INTO FORCE THE ATTACHED GeNEEAL RULES 
 
 and 'Poems, under the title of "General Rules and 
 Forms under the Bankruptcy Act/' and the same are 
 • hereby enacted and put into force accordingly. 
 
 RODOLPHE BOUDREAU, 
 
 Clerk of the Privy Council. 
 
634 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 GENERAL RULES UNDER THE 
 BANKRUPTCY ACT 
 
 Rules 1, 2 
 Short title 
 
 PART I. 
 
 PRELIMINARY. 
 
 1. These Rules may be cited as " The Bankruptcy Eules," 
 and shall come into operation on the First day of July, A.D. 
 1920. (E.E. 1.)* 
 
 The rules are made under the authority of section 66 of the Act. 
 They were brought into force by P. C. 1398, dated June 30, 1920. See 
 notes to section 98. 
 
 Inter- 
 pretation of 
 terms. 
 
 2. (1) In these Rules, unless the context or subject matter 
 otherwise requires, — 
 
 " The Act " means " The Bankruptcy Act " and amend- 
 ments thereto for the time being in force. 
 
 " The Court " means the Court as defined by The Bank- 
 ruptcy Act and includes a Registrar when exercising the powers 
 of the Court pursuant to the Act or these rules. 
 
 "'Creditor" includes a corporation and a firm of creditors 
 in partnership. 
 
 "Contributory" means a contributory as defined by section 
 36 (2) of the Act. 
 
 " Judge " means the Judge to whom bankruptcy business is 
 for the time being assigned in any Court having jurisdiction 
 under the Act, or any other judge having authority under the 
 Act or these rules to -act. 
 
 " Proper Officer " means the officer appointed by the Chief 
 Justice of the Court for the transaction or disposal of the par- 
 ticular matter in question. 
 
 " Province " includes Territory. 
 
 " Registrar " means a registrar, deputy registrar or local 
 registrar having jurisdiction in bankruptcy. 
 
 " Seal " shall mean the seal ordinarily used in civil actions 
 and matters before it by the Court having jurisdiction, and the 
 words " Sealed " or " and Sealed " where used shall refer to 
 such seal. 
 
 " Taxing Officer " means and includes the officer of the Court 
 whose duty it is to tax costs in bankruptcy proceedings or in 
 
 * References to the corresponding English 1915 Rules have been 
 inserted for the convenience of the profession. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 635 
 
 pursuance of an authorized assignment or a composition, exten- Rules 3 to 6 
 sion or scheme of -arrangement. 
 
 " Trustee " or " authorized trustee " means a Trustee or 
 authorized trustee as defined by The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 " Written," " writing " and any like expression shall include 
 typewriting, printing or mimeographing 'or partly one and 
 partly another. 
 
 (2) The definitions contained in section two of the Act shall, 
 where applicable and unless the context or subject matter other- 
 wise requires, apply to and be part of these rules. (E.R. 3.) 
 
 See definitions in section 2 of the Act. 
 
 3. (1) The forms in the Appendix, where applicable, or Use of forms 
 forms to the like effect with such variations as circumstances in Appendix. 
 may require, shall be used. Where such forms are applicable 
 any costs occasioned by the use of any other or more prolix 
 forms shall be borne by or disallowed to the party using the 
 same, unless the Court shall otherwise direct. 
 
 (2) The provisions contained in the forms prescribed shall 
 be deemed to be authorized by these rules. (E.R, 5.) 
 
 PART II. 
 
 GENERAL PROCEDURE. 
 
 4. All matters and applications shall be heard and deter- All matters 
 mined in Chambers unless the Court or a judge shall in the fef 13 ,^ 11 
 particular matter or application otherwise direct. (Contrast ers " 
 E.K. 6.) 
 
 5. A Eegistrar may without any general or special direc- Jurisdiction 
 tions of the judge hear and determine any matter or application of Regis- 
 referred to in section 65(2) of the Act. (Of. E.R. 7.) trars - 
 
 Cross References: Section 65, Rules 117, 119, 120, 11(1) ; 6. 
 
 By section 65(2) (e) the Registrar has power to make any order 
 or exercise any jurisdiction which by any rule in that behalf is pre- 
 scribed as proper to be made or exercised in Chambers. It is suggested 
 JUat the jurisdiction conferred by section 65(2) (e) and Rule 5 must 
 De read subject to the limitations implied in section 65, and in the Rules. 
 See section 65(2) (g), 65(3), and Rules 117, 119, 120, 11(1). As to 
 w parte applications see Rules 15, 2. 
 
 6. Any matter or application pending before a Registrar Adjournment 
 much under the Act, or the Bankruptcy Rules for the time being £°m 
 m torce, a Registrar has jurisdiction to determine, shall be S Judge! 
 
636 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Rules adjourned to be heard before the Judge, if the Judge shall, 
 7 10 10 either specially or by any general direction applicable to the 
 particular case, so direct. (E.E. 8.) 
 
 Cross References: Rules 4, 5. 
 
 See Re Hooley (1899), 80 L. T. 495; 6 Mans. 176, where an appli- 
 cation for a discharge was adjourned to be heard before- the Judge. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 Proceedings 7. Every proceeding in Court under the Act shall be dated, 
 
 intTtuled an< ^ sna ^ ^e intituled in the name of the Court in which it is 
 
 See form'l. taken " In Bankruptcy," and then in the matter to which it 
 
 relates. Numbers and dates may be denoted by figures. (E.E. 
 
 10.) 
 
 (2) Unless otherwise provided, all proceedings and docu- 
 ments required, under the Act or these Rules, to be filed in Court 
 or with the proper officer, shall be filed with the registrar. 
 
 Cross References: Section 68. Rules 9, 18, 19, 76. 
 
 Written 8. All proceedings in Court shall be written on sheets of 
 
 proceedings. p a p er f the size ordinarily used in civil actions or matters 
 
 before it by the Court ; but no objection shall be allowed to any 
 
 proof, affidavit or other proceedings on account of its being 
 
 written or printed on paper of other size. (E.E. 11.) 
 
 Cross References: Rule 2. 
 
 Records of 9. All proceedings of the Court shall remain of record in 
 
 Court. the Court, but they may at all reasonable times be 'inspected by 
 
 any person. (E.E. 12.) 
 
 Cross References: Rules 7(2) ; 76. 
 
 Deposition's taken under section 56 are a " proceeding " and are to 
 be placed on the file of proceedings In re and ex parte Beall (1894), 
 2 Q. R. 135 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 425 ; 1 Mans. 203. See as to the practice 
 under the Companies' Act In re Standard Gold Mining Co. (1895), 2 
 Ch. 545; 64 L. J. Ch. 790; 2 Mans. 463. Under the English Act an 
 application to disclaim leaseholds is a " proceeding under the Act " In re 
 Proctor (1891), 2 Q. B. 433; 8 Mor. 251. See further as to "proceed- 
 ings under the Act," notes to sections 67, 68. 
 
 Process to 10- All petitions, and warrants and subpoenas issued by the 
 
 be sealed. Court, shall be sealed. (E.E. 14.) 
 
 Cross References: Sections 4, 55, 56. Rules 34-49, 74-84. Forms 
 2, 58-61. 83-84. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 4337 
 
 11. (1) The judge may at any time, for good cause shown, B.ules 
 order the proceedings in any matter under the Act to be trans- 11 10 14 
 f erred to the Court in another bankruptcy district or division. Transfer of 
 (E.R. 18.) proceedings. 
 
 (2) Where the proceedings in any matter are transferred See form 16 - 
 to the Court in another bankruptcy district or division the proper ^nof" 18 " 
 officer of the first 'Court shall send by post the records of pro- records, 
 ceedings transferred, to the Registrar of the Court in the bank- 
 ruptcy district or division to which the transfer is made and 
 shall include with such records a copy of the order of transfer 
 (E.R. 22.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 4(11) ; 71. Rules 12; 4, 5, 120. 
 
 It was held under the English practice that such an application 
 should be made to the Judge in Chambers and not in Court : In re 
 WUliams ex parte 0. R. (1888), 5 Mor. 103. 
 
 12. When any bankruptcy proceeding has been commenced Proceedings 
 in a bankruptcy district or division in which it should not have commenced 
 been commenced, the Judge of the Court of such bankruptcy Court^ 
 district or division may order that the proceeding shall be trans- 
 ferred to the Court in the bankruptcy district or division in 
 which the same should have been commenced, or that it be con- 
 tinued in the Court in which it- was commenced ; but, unless and 
 until a transfer is made under these Rules, the proceeding shall 
 continue in the Court in which it was commenced. (E.R. 24.) 
 
 Cross References: Sections 4(4) (11) ; 71. Rule 11. 
 
 13. Where any proceedings in bankruptcy have been com- Leave to 
 menced against a corporation or where a corporation has made proceed^ 
 an authorized assignment, the Court may, on the application of winding-up 
 the trustee or any creditor or shareholder, grant leave that all Act. 
 further proceedings in the winding up of the corporation or 
 liquidation of its assets be continued under The WindmgrUp 
 4d and amendments thereto, and may make such order for the 
 transfer of proceedings or to effectuate such leave as to the 
 Court shall seem best. 
 
 Cross References: Sections 2 (ft) (0) ; 66(2). Rule 82. 
 
 MOTIONS AND PKACXICK. 
 
 14. Every application (unless otherwise provided by these Application 
 Rules, or the Court shall in any particular case otherwise direct) J^* 161 ?-™ 6 
 shall be made by motion. (E.R. 26.) oy motion. 
 
 Cross References: Rules 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. 
 
638 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Rules Provisions of other Acts requiring notice before action are inapplic- 
 
 15 to 17 able to proceedings by motion in the Court of Bankruptcy : In re Lock 
 
 eir: parte Poppleton (1890), 7 Mor. 184. A person may be estopped from 
 
 moving in the Court of Bankruptcy by reason of the fact that he has 
 failed in substantially the same matter elsewhere : In re Hilton ex parte 
 March (1892), 67 h. T. 594; 9 Mor. 286. See as to the right of a 
 sheriff to interplead by motion: In re Morris ex parte Streeter (1881), 
 19 Ch. D. 216 ; 45 L. T. 734. 
 
 Notice of 
 motion and 
 Ex parte 
 application. 
 
 15. Where any party, other than the applicant, is affected 
 by the motion, no order shall be made, unless upon the consent 
 of such party duly shown to the Court, or upon proof to the 
 satisfaction of the 'Court that notice of, the intended motion has 
 been duly served upon such party; provided that the Court, if 
 satisfied that the delay caused by serving notice would or might 
 entail serious mischief, may make any order ex parte upon such 
 terms as to cost and otherwise, and subject to such undertaking, 
 if any, as the Court may think just; and any party affected. by 
 such order may move to set it aside. (B.E..27.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 05(2) (g). 
 
 Where the trustee moved for a declaration that certain property 
 alleged to have been transferred' by the debtor to the respondents was part 
 of the debtor's estate it was held that a third party to whom the respon- 
 dents had purported to sell the property had no locus standi to be heard, 
 as process could not issue on the order which would bind the third party 
 in any way : In re Von Weissenfeld esc parte Hendry (1892), 9 Mor. 30. 
 
 Length of 
 notice. 
 
 16. Unless the Court gives leave to the contrary, notice of 
 motion shall be served on any party to be affected thereby not 
 less than four days before the day named in the notice for 
 hearing the motion. An application for leave to serve short 
 notice of motion may be made ex parte. (E.E. 28.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 83. Bules 149; 17, 50, 51, 52, 58. 
 
 The Court may, it seems, give leave to effect service by registered 
 post or by service upon the solicitor representing the persons whom it is 
 desired to serve: In re and ex parte Calvert (No. 2) (1899), 6- Mans. 
 216 ; 80 L. T. 499. Copies of the affidavit to be used on the motion 
 should be served when the notice of motion is served: In re Wells ex 
 parte Collins (1892), 9 Mor. 191 ; 66 L. T. 688. See as to service of a 
 notice of motion on persons outside the jurisdiction of the English Court: 
 In re RatKbone ex parte Paterson (1887), 56 L. J. Q. B. 504; 4 Mor. 
 270; 57 L. T. 420; 35 W. B. 735 ; In re Alderson ex parte Kirly (No. 2) 
 (1S91), 8 Mor. 95. See where the wrong date was mentioned in the 
 notice: In re Alderson ex parte Kiroy (No. 1) (1891), 8 Mor. 93. 
 
 Personal 17. In cases in which personal service of any notice of 
 
 service. motion, order, or other proceeding, is required the same may be 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 639 
 
 effected by delivering to each party to be served a copy of the Rules 
 notice of motion, order, or other proceeding, as the case may be. 18 to 28 
 (Gf. E.R. 32.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 83. . Rules 16, 35, 50-52, 77, 78, 
 80-84, 90, 91, 93. 
 
 Where personal service is not required service may be effected by 
 registered post, sec. 83, Rule 52 ; and in the case of a solicitor but not 
 of an authorized trustee, by being left at his address for service, Rule 51. 
 See as to substituted service on the debtor 78, 80-84. 
 
 18. Every affidavit to be used in supporting or opposing any Filing 
 motion or application shall be filed with the proper officer not affidavits. 
 later than the day before the day of the hearing. (E.R. 33.) 
 
 19. A party intending to move shall, not later than the day Notice of 
 before the day of the hearing, file with the proper officer a copy ™ * lon *° be 
 of his notice of motion. (E.R. 35.) 
 
 SETTLEMENT OF ORDER. 
 
 20. All orders made by a Judge in Chambers shall be settled Settlement 
 and signed by him or by the Registrar or proper officer. All f 1 " 1 "P*" 
 orders made by the Registrar shall be settled and signed by the orders. 
 Registrar. The person who has the carriage of any order which 
 in the opinion of the Judge or Registrar requires to be settled 
 shall obtain from the Judge or Registrar, as the case may be, 
 an appointment to settle the order and give reasonable notice 
 of the appointment to all persons who may be affected by the 
 order, or to their solicitors. (C/. E.R. 37.) 
 
 SECURITY IN COURT. 
 
 21. (1) Except where otherwise provided any security Security by ■• 
 required to be given shall be by bond of a guarantee company bond. 
 
 or corporation approved by the Court. See form 10. 
 
 (2) Provided, however, that the Court may in its discretion justification 
 permit the security to be given by bond with one or more surety of sureties.' 
 or sureties to the Registrar of the Court or to the person proposed g ee f or ms 
 to be secured and in such case the Court may require the surety U and 12. 
 or sureties to make an affidavit of justification and may also 
 require such notice to be given to the person proposed to be 
 secured as the Court deems advisable or expedient. (Gf. E.R. 
 38.) 
 
 22. The bond shall be taken in a penal sum, which shall be Amount of 
 not less than the sum for which security is to be given, and on " 
 
640 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Rules 
 23 to 29 
 
 Deposit in 
 lieu of bond. 
 
 Notice of 
 deposit. 
 
 Payment of 
 money into 
 or out of 
 Court. 
 
 probable costs to be estimated by the Court, unless the opposite 
 party consents to it being taken for a less sum. (E.E. 39.) 
 
 23. Where a person is required to give security he may, in 
 lieu thereof, lodge in Court a sum equal to the sum in question 
 in respect of which security is to be given and the probable 
 costs to be estimated as aforesaid of the trial of the question, 
 together with a memorandum to be approved of by the Begistrar 
 and to be signed by such person, his solicitor, or agent, setting 
 forth the conditions on which the money is deposited. (E.E. 40.) 
 
 24. Where a person gives security by bond or makes a deposit 
 of money in lieu of giving a bond, he shall forthwith before 
 
 .being entitled to proceed give notice in writing to the person to 
 whom the security is to be given. (E.E. 46.) 
 
 25. Except as in the Act or these rules otherwise. provided 
 the Eules for the time being in force in civil actions or matters 
 before it of the Court relating to payment into or out of Court 
 of moneys shall apply to moneys lodged in Court or to be paid 
 out of Court under these Eules. (E.E. 41.) 
 
 Cross References: Rules 22-25, 152. Forms 10, 11, 12. 
 
 Form oi 
 affidavits. 
 
 Scandalous 
 matter. 
 
 Erasures. 
 
 Blind or 
 illiterate 
 persons. 
 
 AFFIDAVITS. 
 
 26. Every affidavit shall be drawn up in the first person, 
 and shall state the description and true place of abode of its 
 deponent, and shall be divided into paragraphs, and every 
 paragraph shall be numbered consecutively, and as nearly as 
 may be shall be confined to a distinct portion of the subject. 
 No costs shall be allowed for any part of an affidavit containing 
 unnecessary matters or which in the opinion of the taxing officer 
 is unduly prolix. (E.E. 50, 51.) 
 
 27. The Court may order to be struck out from any affidavit 
 any matter which is scandalous, and may order the costs of any 
 application to strike out such matter to be paid as between 
 solicitor and client. (E.E. 53.) 
 
 28. No affidavit having in the jurat or body thereof, any 
 interlineation, alteration, or erasure shall, without leave of the 
 Court, be read or made use of in any matter depending in 
 Court unless the interlineation, alteration or erasure is authenti- 
 cated by the initials "of the officer or person taking the affidavit. . 
 (E.E. 54.) 
 
 29. Where an affidavit is sworn by any person who appears 
 to the person taking the affidavit to be illiterate or blind, the 
 person taking the affidavit shall certify in the jurat that the 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 641 
 
 affidavit was read in his presence to the deponent, that the Rules 
 deponent seemed perfectly to understand it, and that the depon- 30 to 34 
 ent made his signature or declared his inability to sign in the 
 presence of such person. No such affidavit shall be used in 
 evidence in the absence of this certificate, unless the Court is 
 otherwise satisfied that the affidavit was read over to and 
 appeared to be perfectly understood by the deponent. (E.E. 55.) 
 
 30. The Court may receive any affidavit sworn for the pur- Formal 
 pose of being used in any matter notwithstanding any defect by defects, 
 misdescription of parties or otherwise in the title or jurat, or 
 
 any other irregularity in the form thereof, and may direct a 
 memorandum to be made on the document that it has been so 
 received. (E.E. 56.) 
 
 31. No affidavit (other than a proof of debt) shall be suffi- Swearing of 
 eient if sworn before the solicitor acting for the party on whose affidavits, 
 behalf the affidavit is to be used, or before any agent, clerk or 
 
 partner of such solicitor, or before the party himself. (E.E. 58.) 
 
 32. Where by this Act or in these Eules it is provided that Affidavit on 
 an affidavit or declaration be made by a debtor, authorized trustee be ^ alf ot - 
 or any other person and such debtor, authorized trustee, 
 
 or other person is a corporation, such affidavit or declaration 
 may be made by the manager or by any officer or employee of 
 the corporation, who has knowledge of the facts deposed to pro- 
 viding that he states therein that he has such knowledge. 
 
 33. The Court shall take judicial notice of the seal and/or Proof of 
 signature of any person authorized by or under the Act or these affidavit, 
 rules to take affidavits or to certify to such authority. (E.E. 60.) 
 
 Cross References: Sections 79, 85, 87. Rules 146, 152, 34-42, 43, 
 50-52. Forms 3-5, 12, 35, 40, 43, 54, 55, 77. 
 
 WITNESSES AND DEPOSITIONS. 
 
 34. Any party to any proceeding in Court may by a writ of Attendance 
 subpoena in the prescribed form, with or without a clause requir- o f witnesses, 
 mg the production of books, deeds, papers, documents land See forms 
 writings, require the attendance of a witness for the purpose of 83 and 84. 
 using his evidence upon any motion, petition or other proceeding 
 before the Court or any judge or registrar. The name of one 
 or more witnesses may be inserted in the subpoena. (E.E. 61.) 
 
 Cross References: ORules 10, 35-42, 43, 48, 49, 50-52. Forms 
 84-85. 
 
 As to what may be " proceedings " see Rule 9. See as to whether 
 the Court may issue a subpoena to a witness in an arbitration between 
 'he trustee and a third party. Section 63 and In re Ackary ex parte 
 
 B.c— 41 
 
642 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Rules Holland (1876), .1 Ch. D. 125 ; 45 L. J. Bank. 133. -Rule 34 should be 
 35 to 38 contrasted with the procedure laid down in section 56 with respect to the 
 examination of debtors and others. 
 
 Service of 
 subpoena. 
 
 35. A copy of the subpoena shall be served, personally, on 
 the witness, within a reasonable time before the time of the 
 return thereof, and service of the subpoena may, where required, 
 be proved by affidavit. (E.E. 62, 63.) 
 
 Cross References: Rules 17, 34, 36-42, 26-33. 
 
 This rule requiring personal service of a copy of the subpoena does 
 not apply to service of the appointment or summons under section 56 : 
 In re Weinberg ex parte 0. R. (1907), 14 Mans. 277; 96 L. T. 79. 
 
 Cost of 
 witnesses. 
 
 36. The costs of witnesses, whether they have been examined 
 or not, may, in the discretion of the Court or taxing officer, be 
 allowed; provided, however, that the 'Court may at any time 
 limit the number of witnesses to be allowed on taxation of costs. 
 (E.E. 64, 65.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 68(2). Rules 42, 54, 57, 102. 
 
 Depositions, 
 «tc. 
 
 37. The Court may, in any matter where it shall appear 
 necessary for the purpose of justice, make an order for the 
 examination upon oath before the Court or any officer, or other 
 person, and at any place, of any witness or person, and may 
 empower any party to any such matter to give such depositions 
 in evidence therein on such terms (if any) as the Court may 
 direct. (E.E. 66.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 56. Rule 34. 
 
 Depositions 38. (1) Where the evidence of any person is taken on or for 
 
 Slenin use on e near i n g °^ an y motion, application or issue or in 
 
 shorthand, pursuance of an order for examination, commission or letters 
 
 of request or where the debtor or any other person is examined 
 
 under section 56 of the Act, or otherwise under the Act or these 
 
 See form 63. Eules, such evidence or examination may be taken in shorthand 
 
 by a shorthand, writer approved and duly sworn by the judge, 
 
 registrar, or person before whom the examination is taken. A 
 
 shorthand writer who has been duly appointed to report trials 
 
 at sittings of the Court need not be sworn. 
 
 Method of (2) When taken in shorthand the evidence or examination 
 
 taking. may ^ e ^ a ] ien d own by question and answer ; and unless otherwise 
 
 ordered it shall not be necessary for the depositions to be read 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 643 
 
 over to or signed by the person examined, unless the judge or Rules 
 registrar so directs, when the examination is taken before a 39 to 41 
 judge or registrar, or in other cases unless any of the parties so 
 desire. 
 
 (3) A copy of the depositions so taken, certified by the 
 judge, registrar or person before whom the same were taken as 
 correct, shall for all purposes have the same effect as the original 
 depositions in ordinary cases. (Of. E.E. 67, 68.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 56. Rules 34, 37, 39, 43, 131-134. 
 Form 63. 
 
 39. An order for examination, commission or letters of Form of 
 request to examine witnesses, and the writ, order, commission commission, 
 or request, shall follow the forms for the time being in use in 
 the Court in civil actions or matters before it with such varia- 
 tions as circumstances may require. (E.R.. 69.) 
 
 Cross References: Rules 37, 39, 152. 
 
 40. The Court may, in any matter, at any stage of the pro- Production 
 oeedings, order the attendance of any person for the purpose of of document - 
 producing any writings or other documents named in the order, 
 which the Court may think fit to be produced. (E.E. 70.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 56. Rules 35, 145. 
 
 This rule may be invoked as an alternative to the powers given in 
 section 56: Be Oeiger (1913), 109 L. T. 224. Rule 69 of the Rules of 
 1883 corresponds with Rule 40. 
 
 This rule appears to be made for the purpose of carrying out the 
 provisions of section 56(4) (5) of the Act, per Holmested, R., in Re 
 Andrew Motherwell of Canada, Ltd. (1921), 20 O. W. N. 306. 
 
 41. Any person wilfully disobeying any subpoena or order Disobedience 
 requiring his attendance for the purpose of being examined or ° f order, 
 producing any object, book or document shall be deemed guilty 
 of contempt of Court, and may be dealt with accordingly. 
 (E.R. 71.) 
 
 Cross References: Rules 34, 85, 37, 40, 48, 49. 
 
 Semble, a witness who has not been tendered the fees and conduct 
 money referred to in Rule 42 cannot be committed for contempt under 
 this rule: In re Batson ex parte Hastie (1894), 1 Mans. 45; 70 L. T. 
 382. The committal is by way of civil process, cannot be invoked against 
 privilege of parliament, and determines ex deoito justiciae as soon as the 
 person committed yields obedience to the order of the Court and pays 
 the costs: In re. Armstrong ex parte IAndsay (1892), 1 Q. B. 327; 8 
 Mor. 271. 
 
644: 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY AOT. 
 
 Rules 42. Any witness required to attend for the purpose of being 
 
 42 10 45 examined, or to produce any document, or to give evidence, 
 
 Conduct shall be entitled to the witness fees and conduct money provided 
 
 money. by the tariff of costs in the appendix hereto. (E.E. 72.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 56. Rules 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 54, 
 102, 118. Tariff 89-91. 
 
 Discovery 
 
 and 
 
 examination 
 
 DISCOVERY AND EXAMINATION. 
 
 43. Any party to any proceeding in Court may, with leave 
 of the Court, administer interrogatories to or obtain discovery 
 ' of documents or examination for discovery from any other 
 party to such proceeding, or any other person as authorized by 
 the 'Courts and may also cross-examine any person upon an 
 affidavit made by him in such a proceeding. Proceedings under 
 this Eule shall be regulated as nearly as may be by the Rules 
 of the Court for the time being in force in relation to like 
 matters in civil actions or matters in such Court. An application 
 for leave under this Eule may be made ex parte. (E.E. 73.) 
 Cross References: Rule 152. 
 
 In England examination of the debtor is not allowed under the 
 corresponding rule until after the receiving order is made : In re Debtor 
 (1910), 2 K. B. 59. This Rule may not be made use of to do indirectly 
 that which the process of the Court will not allow to be done directly: 
 In re Dashwood ex parte Kirk (1886), 3 Mor. 257. The Rule applies 
 in cases arising under section 56(4) (5) of the Act: In re Andrew 
 Motherwell of Canada, Ltd. (1921), 20 O. W. N. 306 (Holmested, R.). 
 See generally as to privilege on examination, notes to section 56. 
 The Registrar in Manitoba refused an application for the examination 
 of the debtor under Rule 43, where a criminal charge of fraudulently 
 obtaining credit was pending against him: In re Levine (1921), 1 C. B. 
 R. 410 (Patterson, R.). S«e as to Ontario practice in civil matters: In 
 re Gmsoerg (1917) , 40 O. L. R. 136 ; 27 C. C. C. 447 ; Machell v. Ottawa 
 Separate School Trustee (1917), 40 O. L. R. 272. 
 
 As to " proceedings," see Rule &. 
 
 To whom 
 warrants 
 addressed. 
 
 See forms 
 60 and 61. 
 
 Custody and 
 production 
 of debtor. 
 
 -WARRANTS, ARRESTS AND COMMITMENTS. 
 
 44. A warrant of seizure, or a search warrant, or any other 
 warrant issued under the provisions of the Act, or these rules, 
 shall be addressed to the Sheriff or such other officer or person 
 as the 'Court may in each case direct. (E.E. 80.) 
 
 45. When a debtor is arrested under a. warrant issued under 
 section fifty-five of the Act, he shall be given into custody of 
 the Governor or Keeper of the prison or gaol mentioned in the 
 warrant, who shall produce such debtor before the Court as it 
 may from time to time direct, and shall safely keep him until 
 such time as the Court shall otherwise order; and any books, 
 papers, moneys, goods, and chattels in the possession of the 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 645 
 
 debtor, which may be seized, shall forthwith be lodged with the Rules 
 trustee. (E.E. 81.) 46 to 49 
 
 46. IWhere a person is apprehended under a warrant issued Execution 
 under section fifty-six (2) of the Act the officer apprehending ot warrant, 
 him shall forthwith bring him before the Court issuing the war- 
 rant to the end that he may be examined, and if he cannot 
 immediately be brought up for examination or examined, the 
 
 officer shall deliver him into custody of the Governor or Keeper 
 of the prison or gaol mentioned in the warrant, and the said 
 Governor or Keeper shall receive him into custody • and shall 
 produce him before the Court as it may from time to time 
 direct or order and subject to such direction or order shall 
 safely keep him. (E.E. 82(1).) 
 
 47. The officer executing a warrant issued under section To be 
 fifty-six (2) of the Act shall forthwith, after apprehending thcP^uced^ 
 person named in the warrant and bringing him before the Court ti n. 
 
 as in the last preceding rule mentioned, or after delivering him 
 to the Governor or Keeper of the prison or gaol in the last pre- 
 ceding rule mentioned, as the case may be, report such appre- 
 hension or delivery to the Court issuing the warrant, and apply 
 to the Court to appoint a day and time for the examination of 
 •the person so apprehended, and the Court shall thereupon 
 appoint the earliest practicable day for the examination and shall 
 issue its direction or order to the said Governor or Keeper to 
 produce him for examination at a place and time to be men- 
 tioned in such direction or order. Notice of any such appoint- 
 ment shall forthwith be given by the Eegistrar to the Trustee 
 and to such other person who shall have applied for the examina- 
 tion or warrant. (E.E. 82(2.).) 
 
 48. Where an order of committal is made against any person, Suspension 
 for disobeying any order of the Court, to do some particular act of or ^r of 
 or thing, the Court may direct that the order of committal shall 
 
 not be issued, provided that such person complies with the previ- 
 ous order within a specified time. (E.E. 85.) * 
 
 49. Where a debtor or witness refuses or neglects to. attend where 
 at the time and place appointed for his examination or, if w i taess t0 
 attending, refuses to be sworn, or to answer any lawful ques- attend, etc. 
 tion, the rules of practice for the time being in force in similar 
 
 or analogous proceedings in civil actions or matters before the 
 Court shall in so far as the same are applicable, and not incon- 
 sistent with the Act or these Bules, apply. 
 
 Cross References: Sections 55, 56 Rules 10, 50-52, 41, 152. 
 Forms 60, 61. 
 
646 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Rules 
 50 to 54 
 
 Address of 
 solicitor for 
 service. 
 
 Hours of 
 service. 
 
 Duties of 
 sheriff or 
 bailiff. 
 
 SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS. 
 
 50. Every solicitor suing out, filing or serving any petition, 
 notice, summons, order, or other document, shall indorse there- 
 on his name or firm and place of business, which shall be called 
 his -address for service. All notices, orders, documents, and 
 other written communications which do not require personal 
 service, shall be deemed to be sufficiently served on euch solicitor 
 if left for him at his address for service. (B.R. 87.) 
 
 51.. Service of notices, orders, or other proceedings shall be 
 effected before the hour of five in the afternoon, except on 
 Saturdays, when it shall be effected before the hour of one in the 
 afternoon. .Service effected after five in the afternoon on any 
 week day, except Saturday, shall for the purpose of computing 
 any period of time subsequent, to such service be deemed to have 
 been effected on the next following day which is not a legal 
 holiday. Service effected after one in the afternoon on Satur- 
 day shall for the like purpose be deemed to have been effected on 
 the next following day which is not a legal holiday. (E.R. 88.) 
 
 5&. It shall be the duty of the sheriff or bailiff of the Court 
 having jurisdiction or such officer or officers as the Court may 
 direct, ' to serve such orders, summonses, petitions and notices 
 as the Court may require him to serve; to execute warrants 
 and other process; and to do and perform all such things as 
 may be required of him by the Court. Where any notice or 
 other proceeding may be served by post it shall be sent by regis- 
 tered letter. (E.E. 89, 90.) 
 
 Cross References: Sections 87, 83. Rules 15-17, 34-35, 77, 78, 
 80-84, 90, 91, 148-151, 152. 
 
 It should be noted that section 50 providing for service other than 
 by registered post where personal service is unnecessary applies only in 
 the case of service on solicitors. It does not permit service on an 
 authorized trustee by leaving the document at his office. In such case 
 service must be by registered post if personal service cannot be effected. 
 
 Enforce- 
 ment of 
 orders. 
 
 53. Every order of the Court may be enforced as if it were 
 a judgment of the Court. (E.R. 91.) 
 
 Awarding 
 
 costs. 
 
 COSTS AND TAXATION. 
 
 54. (1) The Court in awarding costs may direct that the 
 same shall be taxed and paid as between party and party or as 
 between solicitor and client, or the Court may fix a sum to be 
 paid in lieu of taxed costs. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. Qtf 
 
 (2) In the absence of any express direction costs of an Bules 
 
 opposed motion shall follow the event, and shall be taxed as 
 between party and party. 
 
 (3) Where an action is brought by or against an authorized 
 trustee as representing the estate of the debtor, or where an 
 authorized trustee is made a party to a cause or matter, on his 
 application or on the application of. any other party thereto, he 
 shall not be personally liable for costs unless the judge before 
 whom the action, cause or matter is tried for some special reason 
 otherwise directs. (E.E. 96.) 
 
 Cross References: Sections 16(1), 68(2), 36(10), 37(9), 46(8), 
 56(3) (7), 4(7), 11(3), 51(1), 11(14) ; Rules 36, 42, 102, 118, 55-62. 
 
 If the direction referred to in 54(2) is not made at the time when 
 the order awarding costs is made the Court has no jurisdiction to give it 
 subsequently: In re Angell ex parte . Shoolbred (1S84), 14 Q. B. D. 
 298; 54 L. J. Q. B. 387; 2 Mor. 5. The scope of (Rule 54(3) has yet 
 to be determined. It is possible that it may be construed so as not to 
 protect the trustee unless he sues or defends in his official name. See 
 section 16(1). See as to liability of trustee for costs, notes to section 
 20(1) (c). See as to costs where the trustee resists payment, of liability 
 incurred by him subsequently to the assignment : Re Auto Experts, 
 United ex parte Tanner (1921), 19 O. W. N. 532. 
 
 Where costs are given generally the subsequent costs of working 
 out the order will be included : Kreld v. Park (1875) , L. R. 10 Ch. 334 ; 
 44 L. J. Ch. 286 ; In re Lavey (No. 3) ex parte Cohen & Cohen (1920) . 
 B. & C. R. 182 (costs of a valuation of furniture where sale at a valua- 
 tion was ordered). 
 
 55,56 
 
 55. (1) When a receiving order is made on a creditor's peti- Costs of 
 tion the costs of the petitioning creditor shall be taxed and be petition, 
 payable out of the estate. 
 
 (2) When the proceeds of the estate are not sufficient for 
 the payment of the petitioning creditor's costs and of any costs 
 necessarily incurred by the trustee down to the conclusion of the 
 first meeting of creditors, the 'Court may order such costs to be 
 paid by the petitioning creditor. (B.R. 187.) 
 
 Cross References: Sections 4. 51, 15(3). Rules 54, 60, 61. See 
 as to priority of costs under the Act of 1869, in the ease of two petitions : 
 In re Springall ex parte Page (1872), 25 L. T. 716. See as to costs 
 of an unsuccessful petition under the then English rule : In re a Debtor 
 (1910), 1 K. B. 313; 79 L. J. K. B. 263; 17 Mans. 6. 
 
 56. The costs directed by any order to be paid shall be Taxation 
 taxed on production of a copy of such order, and the allocatur of costs, 
 or certificate of taxation shall be signed and dated by the taxing 
 master or officer and delivered to the person who presented such 
 bill for taxation. (B.R. 98.) 
 
648 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Rules 
 57 to 60 
 
 Tariff of 
 costs. 
 
 See Part 2 
 Appendix 
 
 57. (1) The tariff of costs set forth in the Appendix and the 
 regulations contained in such tariff, shall, subject to these Eules, 
 apply to the taxation and allowance of costs and charges in all 
 proceedings. 
 
 (2) Where the estimated assets of the debtor, in accordance 
 with the certificate of the authorized trustee, do not exceed the 
 sum of fifteen hundred dollars^ a lower scale of solicitor's costs 
 shall be allowed in all proceedings under the Act in which costs 
 are payable out of the estate, namely — two thirds of the charges 
 ordinarily allowed, disbursements being added, unless the Court 
 by order directs that increased costs be allowed. (E.E. 103.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 67, 56(3). Rules 36, 54-56, 58-62, 
 102, 118. See notes to section 67: In re Dowson ex parte Jaynes 
 (1888), 5 Mor. 240; 57 B. J. Q. B. 522; In re Parfitt (1889), 23 
 Q. B. D. 40 ; 58 X. J. Q. B. 428 ; 6 Mor. 166 ; In re Weighell ex parte 
 O. R. (1909) , 1 K. B. 92 ; 78 B. J. K. B. 86 ; 15 Mans. 335 ; In re Marsh 
 ex parte Board of Trade (1894)," 1 Mans. 486; 71 B. T. 776; In re 
 Proctor (1891), 2 Q. B. 433 ; 8 Mor. 251. 
 
 Notice of 
 appoint- 
 ment. 
 
 58. Every person whose bill or charges is or are to be taxed 
 shall in all cases give not less than two days' notice of the 
 appointment to tax the same to the Trustee, or to the opposite 
 party or his solicitor, as the case may be. (E.E. 112.) 
 
 Cross References: Rule 16. Trustee means the trustee at the 
 time when taxation takes place: In re Smith ex parte Wilson (1910), 
 2 IC. B. 346 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 16 ; 17 Mans. 290. 
 
 Copy of ' 
 bill. 
 
 59. Every person whose bill or charges is or are to be taxed 
 shall on application of the trustee furnish to the trustee a copy 
 of his bill or charges so to be taxed on payment at the rate of 
 fifteen cents per folio, which payment may be charged to the 
 estate. (E.E. 114.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 51. 
 
 Costs out of 
 joint and 
 separate 
 estates. 
 
 60. Where the joint estate of any co-debtors is insufficient to 
 defray any costs or charges properly incurred, the trustee, may 
 pay such costs and charges as cannot be paid out of the joint 
 estate out of the separate estates of such co-debtors or one or 
 more of them in such proportion as he may determine, with the 
 consent of the inspectors of the estates out of which the payment 
 is intended to be made, or, if such inspectors withhold or refuse 
 their consent, then with the approval of the Court. (E.E. 121.) 
 
 Cross References: Sections 69, 28(2), 51(3). Rule 94. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 649 
 
 61. Subject to the provisions of the Act, no costs shall be Rules 
 paid out of the estate or assets of the debtor, excepting the costs 61 10 65 
 of the solicitor or solicitors employed by the trustee and such Limit of 
 costs as have been awarded against the trustee or the estate of costs pay- 
 the debtor by order of the Court in any action or proceeding trustees, 
 under the Act or these Rules. 
 
 Cross References: Sections 51(1), 11(1) (3) (10) (141 , 51(2), 
 6T, 36(10), 37(9), 46(8), 56(3) (7), 4(7), 68(2), 74(4) (5). Rules 
 yi, 62. 
 
 The principle on which bills of costs as between solicitor and 
 client as distinguished from party and party, are to be taxed, is discussed 
 in Giles v. Randall (1915), 1 K. B. 290; 84 L. J. K. B. 786. Taxation 
 as between an authorized trustee and his solicitor falls within the second 
 of the three classes mentioned in that case, that is to say where the costs 
 are to be paid out of a common fund in which the client and others are 
 interested. In such a case the taxing master has to say what is fair 
 and proper: In re Larey (Wo. 2) ex parte Cohen & Cohen (1920), B. & 
 C. R. 171. 
 
 FEES. 
 
 62. The fees to be charged for or in respect of proceedings Fees payable 
 under the Act shall be as fixed by the tariff in part three of the on P r °- 
 Appendix and shall be collected and may be retained by the 
 registrars or other proper officers who perform the duties under See part 3 
 the Act or these Rules in respect of which such fees are payable. ppeE 
 In case of any proceedings not covered by the tariff a fee may 
 be charged of an amount equal to the tariff fee for the proceed- 
 ing most nearly resembling the one in question. In the case of 
 any dispute as to the amount 'of fees charged the judge shall fix 
 and settle the amount. 
 
 KULES RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT. 
 
 _ 63. The judge or judges of the Court appointed by the sittings. 
 Minister of Justice to have jurisdiction in bankruptcy shall, 
 with the approval of the Chief Justice of the Court, Tegulate the 
 bankruptcy sittings and vacations of the Court. (E.R. 132.) 
 
 64. Any Registrar in bankruptcy may act for any other Registrars 
 
 Registrar. (E.R. 124.) to t ct £ r 
 
 v ' each other. 
 
 65. Writs of execution shall issue from the proper office of Execution 
 the 'Court and all proceedings thereon and in relation thereto on orders - 
 shall be regulated as nearly as may be by the Rules of the Court 
 
 for the time being in force in relation to executions in civil 
 actions or matters before such Court. (E.R. 126.) 
 
 Cross Reference: Rule 152. 
 
650 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Rules 
 66 to 68 
 
 Officers 
 refusing to 
 act. 
 
 66. Where any registrar, clerk or other officer in bankruptcy 
 refuses or neglects to act as such registrar, clerk or other officer 
 or to perform or carry out any act, matter or thing connected 
 with the office to which he has been appointed or assigned for 
 the transaction or disposal of any matter in respect of which 
 power or jurisdiction is given by "The Bankruptcy Act " or by 
 these Eules, then, and in every such case, the registrar, clerk or 
 other officer so neglecting or refusing, shall be guilty of contempt 
 of court and be liable to be punished accordingly. , 
 
 Cross References: Section 65(3). See as to jurisdiction over a 
 registrar of a County Court: In re Wise ex parte Registrar of Croydon 
 County Court (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 389 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 362 ; 3 Mor. 174. 
 
 Appeals 
 
 from 
 
 Registrar. 
 
 APPEALS FROM REGISTRAR. 
 
 67. An appeal from the registrar shall be by ordinary notice 
 of motion to the judge of the bankruptcy district or division in 
 which the proceedings are pending. No appeal shall be brought 
 unless the notice thereof is filed with the registrar and served 
 within ten days after the pronouncing of the order or decision 
 complained of, or within such further time as may be allowed 
 by the judge. The notice shall set forth fully the grounds of 
 appeal. No security for the costs of the appeal need be given 
 by the appellant. 
 
 Cross References: Section 65(4). Rule 14. 
 
 Notice and 
 time of 
 appeal. 
 
 Security 
 for appeal. 
 
 APPEALS TO APPEAL COURT. 
 
 68. No appeal from a judge to the Appeal Court shall be 
 brought unless notice thereof is filed with the registrar and 
 served within ten days after the pronouncing of the order or 
 decision complained of or within such further time as may be 
 allowed by a judge. (E.E. 130.) 
 
 (2) At or before the time of entering an appeal the party 
 intending to appeal shall lodge in the court the sum of one 
 hundred dollars to satisfy, in so far as the same may extend, 
 any costs that the appellant^ may be ordered to pay. Provided 
 that the Appeal Court may in any special case increase or 
 diminish the amount of such security or dispense therewith. - 
 (E.E. 131.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 74. Semble, the notice must.be given 
 and the one hundred dollars also lodged within the time limited: In re 
 Taylor ex parte Bolton (1909), 1 K. B. 103; 78 L. 3. K. B. 102; 16 
 Mans. 19. As to applications to increase or diminish the amount after 
 the deposit has been made, see Ex parte hovering in re Thorpe (1873), 
 15 Eq. 291; 42 L. J. Bank. 39; In re Mcltenry (1S86), 17 Q. B. D. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 651 
 
 351 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 496. See where there is no respondent : In re Garrard Rules 
 (1905) , 92 L. T. 779 ; and when the appellant cannot raise the money : 69 to 73 
 
 In re Jones ex parte Lloyd (1891) , 64 L. T. 803 ; 8 Mor. 192 ; In. re Grope 
 
 (1887), 4 Mor. 128; In re Robertson (1885), 2 Mor. 117. See under 
 The Winding-up Act as to extending the time for appeal: In re Calumet 
 Metals, Ltd. v. Eldridge (1914), 15 D. L. R. 461 ; and as to waiver: In 
 re tie Oro Fino Mines, Ltd. (1900), 7 B. C. R. 388; and see: In re 
 floriia, 8 B. C. R. 388. 
 
 69. The proper officer of the 'Court appealed from shall upon Transmis- 
 receiving a copy of the notice of appeal promptly transmit to the sion of pro- 
 Registrar of the Appeal Court the notice of appeal and the file ce 
 
 of proceedings in the matter under appeal. (E.R. 133.) 
 
 70. Where an issue or question is, under the provisions of Appeals 
 section seventy-one of the Act, tried by a Court other than the when issued 
 Court in which the bankruptcy proceedings are pending, any \jf er court- 
 appeal from the decision of such Court shall be made to and be 
 
 heard by the Appeal Court of the province in which the bank- 
 ruptcy proceedings are pending. 
 
 71. Subject to ,the foregoing Eules, appeals to the Appeal Procedure 
 Court in any bankruptcy district or division shall be regulated on appeals, 
 by the Rules of such 'Court, for the time being in force in rela- 
 tion to appeals in civil actions or matters. ((?/. E.R. 134.) 
 
 Cross References: Rule 152. See as to order for substituted 
 service of notice of appeal : In re Whalley ex parte Warburg (1883) , 24 
 Ch. D. 364 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 336 ; and as to the right to a copy of the 
 Registrar's notes, practice note in (1916), H. B. R. 166. 
 
 APPEALS TO SUPEEME COURT. 
 
 72. An application for special leave to appeal from a decision u me and 
 of the Appeal Court and to fix the security for costs, if any, notice of 
 shall be made to a Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada within a PP llcatl0n - 
 thirty days after the pronouncing of the decision complained of 
 and notice of such application shall be served on the other party 
 at least fourteen days before the hearing thereof. 
 
 (2) Where any security for the costs of such appeal is fixed Security, 
 the same shall be given to the Registrar in the manner and form ~ 
 prescribed by the rules and practice of the 'Supreme Court of 
 Canada, or in manner and form to like effect. 
 
 Cross References: Section 74. Rule 73. 
 
 73. Subject to the foregoing rules appeals to the Supreme Procedure. 
 Court of Canada shall, as nearly as possible, be regulated by the 
 rules of such Court for the time being in force in relation to 
 appeals in civil matters or actions. 
 
£52 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Rules 
 74 to 77 
 
 Form of 
 petition. 
 
 See form 2. 
 
 PART III. 
 
 PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY. 
 
 74. Every petition shall be fairly written and no alteration, 
 interlineations, or erasures shall be made therein, after the same 
 has been filed, without the leave of the Eegistrar. (E.R. 145.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 4. Rules 10, 75-84. Form 2. A. peti- 
 tion may be signed for him by the petitioner's attorney : In re and ew 
 parte Wallace (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 22 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 293 ; 1 Mor. 246; 
 and see In re Rolls (1892), 66 L. T. 144. 
 
 Security 
 for costs. 
 
 75. A petitioning creditor Who is resident abroad, or whose 
 estate is vested in a trustee under any law relating to bankruptcy, 
 or against whom a petition is pending under any such law, or 
 who has made default in payment of any judgment, order for 
 payment of money or of any costs ordered by any Court to be 
 paid by him to the debtor, may be ordered to give security for 
 costs to the debtor and proceedings under the petition may be 
 stayed until such security is furnished. (E.E. 150.) 
 
 Cross References: Rules 21-25. 
 
 Issue of 
 petition. 
 
 76. With every creditor's petition when filed there shall be 
 lodged a copy to be sealed and issued to the petitioner. The 
 petition shall be deemed to have been presented to the Court on 
 the day of the filing thereof. (E.E. 151.) 
 
 Cross References: Sections 4(1) (4) (9), 7(1), 25. Rules 10, 
 
 74-75, 77-84, 85. 
 
 This rule is of considerable importance, for the relation back of 
 the title of the trustee is to the date of the presentation of the 
 petition. See notes to sections 4(10), 25. It is therefore to be regretted 
 that the meaning of " shall be deemed to have been presented to the 
 Court on the day of the filing thereof " is clouded by Rule 77. It is 
 suggested that the words " presentation and ihearing " in Rule 77 are 
 to be read together, and do not refer to the. presentation defined in 
 Rule 76. See In re and ex parte Davis (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 526; 41 
 L. J. Bank. 69. See further as to filing, Rules 7(2), 79, and In re X. 
 (1920), 19 O. W. N. 12. If defective in form and substance the petition 
 will not be filed : In re X., supra. An authorized trustee may not file a 
 petition for another person, for by so doing he is practising as a solicitor : 
 In re X., supra. As to presentation see Rule 85. 
 
 Service of 
 petition. 
 
 See form 2. 
 
 77. A true copy of the creditor's petition, together with a 
 notice of the time and place of the presentation and hearing 
 thereof, shall he personally served upon the debtor at least eight 
 days before the presentation and hearing; provided that where 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 653 
 
 it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the debtor has Rules 
 absconded, or in any other ease for good cause shown, the Court 78 10 80 
 may, on such terms, if any, as the Court may think fit to impose, 
 hear the petition at such earlier date and without such service 
 as the Court may deem expedient. (B.E. 155.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 83. Rules 78, 80-84, 17, 50, 52, 74-76, 
 79, Form 2. 
 
 " Presentation and hearing " must be distinguished from the 
 presentation which consists in filing under (Rule 76. As to hearing 
 the petition at an earlier date on consent, see In re Thornton Davidson 
 Co. (1921), 1 C. B. R. 379 (Tellier, J.). 
 
 78. If the 'Court is satisfied by affidavit or other evidence Substituted 
 that the debtor is keeping out of the way to avoid service of the service, 
 petition or any other document, or service of any other legal See forms 
 process, or that for any other cause prompt personal service 6 and 7 - 
 cannot be effected, it may order substituted service to be made 
 by delivery of the petition or such other document to some adult 
 inmate at his usual or last known residence or place of business, 
 or by registered letter, or in such other manner as the Court may 
 direct, and such petition or other document shall then be deemed 
 to have been duly served on the debtor. (E.E. 156.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 83. Rules 80-84, 17, 50, 52, 74-77. 
 79-84. Forms 2, 6, 7. For decisions under the corresponding English 
 rule the provisions of which are not quite the same, see In re Lewis ex 
 parte Becker (1893), 10 Mor. 141; In re Urquhart (1890)," 24 Q. B. T>. 
 723; 59 L. J. Q. B. 364; 7 Mor. 94; In re Studer ex parte Charteris 
 (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 227; 44 L. J. Bank. 90; In re Williams (1873), 
 L. R. 8 Ch. 690; Ex parte O'Logken (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 406 ; 40 L. J. 
 Bank. 23. 
 
 79. Service of the petition may be proved by affidavit, with Proof of 
 a sealed copy of the petition attached, and the same shall be filed S€rvice - 
 in Court as soon as practicable after the service. (B.E. 157.) See form 5. 
 
 Cross References: Rule 76. Form 5. 
 
 80. Any notice, petition or other document for which per- Service on 
 sonal service is necessary shall be deemed to be duly served on firm - 
 all the members of a firm if it is served at the principal place 
 or one of the principal places of business of the firm in the 
 province wherein the proceedings are taken, or if there is no such 
 place then at the principal place of business of the firm in 
 Canada, on any one of the partners, or upon any person having 
 at the time of service the control or management of the partner- » 
 ship business there. (B.E. 279.) 
 
654 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Rules 
 81 to 86 
 
 Service on 
 individual 
 trading in 
 name other 
 than his own, 
 
 Service on 
 corporation. 
 
 Service 
 out of 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 Death of 
 debtor . 
 before 
 service. 
 
 81. The provisions of the last preceding rule shall, so far as 
 the nature of the case will admit, apply in the case of any person 
 carrying on business within the jurisdiction in a name or style 
 other than his own. (E:E. 280.) 
 
 82. Any notice, petition or other document for which personal 
 service is necessary shall be deemed to be duly served on a cor- 
 poration if it is served at the head office or principal place, or 
 one of the principal places of business of a corporation in the 
 province wherein the proceedings are taken, or if there is no 
 such place at the head office or principal place of business of 
 the corporation in Canada, on the president, vice-president, 
 secretary, treasurer, manager or upon any officer of the corpora- 
 tion or upon any person having at the time of service the control 
 or management of the business of the corporation at the place 
 of such service. 
 
 83. Where a debtor is not in Canada, the Court may order 
 service of the petition or any other document to be made within 
 such time and in such manner and form as it shall think fit. 
 (E.E. 158, cf. 183.) 
 
 84. If a debtor against whom a bankruptcy petition has been 
 filed dies before service thereof, the Court may order service t? 
 be effected on the personal representatives of the debtor, or on 
 such other person as the Court may think fit. (E.E. 159.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 68(9). Rules 77, 78, 17, 50. A 
 receiver or manager appointed by the Court to wind up a partnership 
 business is not a " person having at the time of the service the control or 
 management of the partnership business ;" for he is not an agent of the 
 partners, being responsible only to the Court: In re Flowers <& Co. 
 (1897), 1 Q. B. 14; 65 L. J. Q. B. 679; 3 Mans. 294. 
 
 INTERIM RECEIVER. 
 
 Appointment 85. After the presentation of a petition, upon the applica- 
 of interim ^ion f a cre ^itor, or of an authorized trustee, or of the debtor 
 himself, and upon proof by affidavit of sufficient grounds for the 
 See form 15. appointment of an authorized trustee as interim receiver of the 
 property of the debtor or any part thereof, the Court may, if it 
 thinks fit, and upon such terms as may be just, make such 
 appointment; such order may be made ex parte. (E.E. 160.) 
 
 Damages 
 if petition 
 dismissed. 
 
 86. Where, after an order has been made appointing an 
 authorized trustee interim receiver, the.petition is dismissed, the 
 Court shall, upon application to be made within 21 days from 
 the date of the dismissal thereof, adjudicate, with respect to any 
 damages or claim thereto arising out of the appointment,' 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 655 
 
 including the proper remuneration of the trustee, and shall make Rules 
 
 such order as the Court thinks fit. (E.R. 165) . 87 10 8 » 
 
 Cross References: Section 5. Form 15. 
 
 HEARING OF PETITION. 
 
 87. Where a debtor intends to show cause against a petition Debtor 
 shall file a notice with the proper officer, specifying the intendin 
 itements in the petition which he intends to deny or dispute, e aus° W 
 and shall transmit by post to the solicitor of the petitioning , 
 
 creditor a copy of the notice three days before the day on which ' ee orm 
 the petition is to be heard. (E.E. 169.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 4. Rules 88-91, 1-18, 150. Form 8. 
 
 Where no notice is given by the debtor under this Rule, the creditor 
 should still be prepared to prove all essentials ; though in such case the 
 question of proof rests, to a certain extent, in the discretion of the 
 Court: In re and ex parte Sanders (1894), 63 L. J. Q. B. 734; 1 Mans. 
 3S2; for the debtor may dispute the petition, even though no notice 
 has been given: In re and ex parte Dale (1876), 3 Ch. D. 322; 45 
 L. J. Bank. 129 ; and even though a notice has been given and with- 
 drawn : In re Luttman ex parte Learoyd (1880) , 13 Ch. D. 321 ; 42 L. T. 
 162; provided the plea is not dilatory merely: In re and ex parte 
 Sanders, supra. 
 
 88. If the debtor does not appear at the hearing, the 'Court Non- 
 may make a receiving order and adjudge the debtor bankrupt appearance 
 on such proof of the statements in the petition as the Court 
 shall think sufficient, (E.R. 170.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 4. Rules S7, 89-91. Where the debtor 
 does not appear, and the Court refuses to make a receiving order, notice 
 of appeal must be served on the debtor : In re Whalley ex parte Warburg 
 (1883), 24 Ch. D. 364; 53 L. J. Ch. 336. The affidavit required by 
 section 4(2) is in order that the Registrar may seal the petition. Further 
 proof should be given on the hearing:/™ re and ex parte Lindsay (1874), 
 L. R. 19 Eq. 52 ; 44 L. J. Bank. 5. Proof should be given at the hearing 
 that the petitioning creditor's debt is still a subsisting debt. This may 
 be proved by viva voce evidence : In re Stables ex parte Smith & Son 
 (1894), 1 Mans. 6S. 
 
 89. On the appearance of the debtor to show cause against Appearance 
 the petition, the 'petitioning creditor's debt, and the act of j£ g^ r 
 bankruptcy, or such of those matters as the debtor shall have cause, 
 given notice that he intends to dispute, shall be proved to the 
 satisfaction of the Court by affidavit or by any evidence which 
 would be admissible to prove the facts in a civil action in the 
 Court. (E.R. 171.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 4. Rules 87-88, 90-91. Where the 
 debtor gives notice of his intention to dispute the statements in the 
 
656 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Rules petition and attends at the hearing, but gives no evidence, the creditor 
 90 to 92 must prove the statements in the petition : In re Ormston ex parte Dodd 
 (1876), 3 Ch. D. 452; 25 W. R. 182. 
 
 Proceedings 
 after trial 
 of disputed 
 question. 
 
 Application 
 to dismiss. 
 
 90. Where proceedings on a petition have been stayed for 
 the determination of the question of the validity of the petition- 
 ing creditor's debt, which question may be determined in such 
 manner as the Court_ may direct, and such question has been 
 decided in favour of the validity of the debt, the registrar shall, 
 on production of the judgment of the Court, or a copy thereof, 
 and on the application of the petitioning creditor, fix a day on 
 which further proceedings on the petition may be had. The 
 petitioning creditor shall within forty-eight hours of the date of 
 said appointment mail or deliver to the, debtor, at the address 
 given in his notice of dispute, a notice in writing of such 
 appointment, and a like notice to his solicitor, if known. (E.E. 
 174.) 
 
 91. Where proceedings on a petition have been stayed for 
 the determination, of the question of the validity of the peti- 
 tioning creditor's debt, and such question has been decided 
 against the validity of the debt, the registrar shall on the pro- 
 duction of the judgment of the Court or a copy thereof,, and on 
 application of the debtor, fix a day on which he may apply to 
 the Court for the dismissal of the petition with costs. The debtor 
 shall, within forty-eight hours of the date of the appointment, 
 mail or deliver to the petitioner (and to his solicitor, if known) 
 notice in writing of the time and place fixed for the hearing of 
 the application. (E.E. 175.) 
 
 Cross References: Section 71(3). Rules 16, 17, 35, 50-52, 77, 78, 
 80-84, 87-89. Where the validity of the debt has been established by a 
 Court of first instance, the Registrar has a judicial discretion to pro- 
 ceed with the hearing of the petition, and is not bound to wait for a 
 final decision of the Court of Appeal on the validity of the debt; but if 
 satisfied that a bona fide appeal is pending he ought to adjourn the 
 hearing until the appeal is disposed of: In re and ex parte Yeatman 
 (1880) , 16 Ch. D. 283 ; 44 ;L. T. 260 ; 29 W. R. 457. Ifcfore fixing a day 
 for the hearing, the Registrar should require the production of the judg- 
 ment establishing the debt or of a copy thereof; but if this has not been- 
 done the irregularity will be waived by the appearance of the debtor or 
 his solicitor on the day fixed without taking the objection, which cannot 
 thereafter be raised : In re and ex parte Yeatman, supra. 
 
 KECEIVING OKDEK. 
 
 Contents. 92. When a receiving order is made on a creditor's petition 
 
 „ . j . there shall be stated in the receiving order the nature and date, 
 'or dates, of the act, or acts, of bankruptcy upon which the order 
 has been made. (E.E.179.) 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 657 
 
 93. The Trustee shall cause a copy of the receiving order Rules 
 or of the order appointing the trustee an interim receiver, as the 98>to 97 
 case may be, to be served on the debtor. (E.E. 183.) Service. 
 
 94. A receiving order against a firm shall operate as a Receiving 
 receiving order not only against the firm, but also against each ° r <i?r 
 person wh» at the date of the order is a partner in that firm. asaiDS rm - 
 (E.E. 285.) 
 
 95. The rights or liabilities of any past or present limited Liability 
 partner of a limited partnership, against which a receiving order of llmlted 
 has been made or which has made an authorized assignment, 
 
 as such rights or liabilities are fixed or defined by the statutory 
 provision (if any) of the province wherein the partnership busi- 
 ness is or has been carried on, shall not in any way be prejudiced 
 or affected by these Eules. (Of. E.E. 286, 290.) 
 
 96. An application to the Court to rescind a receiving order Applications 
 or to stay proceedings thereunder, or to annul an adjudication, t0 rescind 
 shall not be heard except upon pToof that notice of the intended order^te. 
 application and a copy of the affidavits in support thereof have 
 
 been duly served upon the trustee. Unless the Court gives leave 
 to the contrary, notice of any such application together with 
 copies of such affidavits shall be served on the trustee not less 
 than four days before the day named in the notice for hearing 
 the application. Pending the hearing of the application, the 
 Court may make an interim order staying such of the proceed- 
 ings as it thinks fit. (E.E. 188.) 
 
 Cross References: Sections 3-6, 69, 76, 62, 68(10), 13(14) (IS). 
 Eules IT, 60, 149, 150. Form 14. See as to the effect of a receiving 
 order against a firm: In re Jameson, ex parte Cresswell (1891), 8 Mor. 
 278. Where one of the partners is an infant, a receiving order cannot 
 be made against the firm simply, but may be made against the firm " other 
 than" the infant partner: Lovell v. Beauchamp (1894), A. C: 607; 63 
 L. J. Q. B. 802 ; 1 Mans. 467. 
 
 STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS. 
 
 97. £1) Every debtor shall be furnished by the trustee with How made 
 instructions for the preparation of his statement of affairs. out - 
 Such- statement of affairs shall be made out in duplicate and shall See form 52. 
 be verified by the debtor. The trustee shall file with the Eegis- 
 trar one of such verified statements. (E.E. 189.) 
 
 (2) Where the debtor is a partnership it shall submit a By firm, 
 statement, in duplicate, of its partnership affairs verified by one 
 of the partners or by the manager in charge of the business and 
 each partner shall submit a statement, in duplicate, of his 
 separate affairs verified personally (E.E. 287.) 
 
 b.o. — 42 
 
658 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Rules 
 98 to 102 
 
 By corpora- 
 tion. 
 
 (3) Where the debtor is a corporation the statement of 
 affairs, in duplicate, shall be verified by the president, vice-presi- 
 dent, secretary, treasurer, general manager, manager or by any 
 officer or director of the corporation having knowledge of the 
 facts contained in such statement. 
 
 Cross References: Section 54. Form 52. The statement of 
 affairs must be filed in proceedings relating to compositions, exten- 
 sions and schemes, as well as in other cases : In re Richardson (1921) , 
 1 C. B. R. 417; 19 O. W. N. 494 (Holmested, R.). 
 
 Form of 
 proposal. 
 
 See forms 
 23 and 24. 
 
 Notice to 
 creditors. 
 
 See forms 
 28 and 29. 
 
 Opposed 
 application. 
 
 Hearing 
 and appeal. 
 
 Costs of 
 application. 
 
 COMPOSITION, EXTENSION OK SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT. 
 
 98. Where a debtor intends to submit a proposal for a com- 
 position, . extension or scheme of arrangement the prescribed 
 forms in the appendix, of proposal, notice and Teport shall be 
 used by the trustee for the purpose of meetings of creditors for 
 nonsideration of the proposal. (E.E. 200.) 
 
 99. Whenever an application is made to the Court to 
 approve of a composition, extension or scheme, the trustee shall, 
 not less than seven days before the hearing of the application, 
 send notice by registered mail of the application to the debtor 
 and to every creditor who has proved his debt; and the trustee 
 shall file his report not less than two days before the time fixed 
 for hearing the application. (E.E. 203, 205.) 
 
 100. In any case in which an application is made to the 
 Court to approve a composition, extension or scheme and the 
 trustee reports to the Court any fact, matter, or circumstance 
 which would justify the Court in refusing to approve of the 
 composition, extension or scheme, such application shall be 
 deemed to be an opposed application within the meaning of 
 section 65(2) (d) of the Act. (E.E. 204.) 
 
 101. On the hearing of any application to the Court to 
 approve of a composition, extension or scheme the Court shall 
 in addition to considering the report of the trustee hear the 
 trustee, the debtor and/or any opposing,. objecting or assenting 
 creditor thereon, and an appeal to the Court of Appeal shall lie 
 at the instance of the trustee, the debtor or any such creditor 
 from any order of the Court made upon such application. (E.E. 
 206.) 
 
 102. No costs incurred by a debtor, of or incidental to an 
 application to approve a composition, extension or scheme, other 
 than the costs incurred by the trustee, shall be allowed out of 
 the estate if the Court refuses to approve the composition, 
 extension or scheme. (E.E. 207.) 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 659 
 
 103. The 'Court before making an order approving a compo- Knles 
 sition, extension or scheme shall, in addition to investigating 103 10 108 
 the other matters as required by the Act, require proof that the Evidence 
 provisions of section 13(1) and (2) of the Act have been com- and order. 
 plied with. (E.E. 208.) 
 
 104. At the time a composition, extension or scheme is Correction 
 approved, the Court may correct or supply any accidental or giipgf ma 
 formal slip, error, or omission therein, but no alteration in the 
 substance of the composition, extension or scheme shall be 
 
 made. (E.E. 211.) 
 
 105. Where a composition, extension or scheme is annulled, Vesting of 
 the property of the debtor shall, unless the Court otherwise ^i^f 1 " 
 directs, forthwith re-vest in the trustee, if any, in whom the composition 
 estate was originally vested without any special order being annull « d - 
 made or necessary. (E.E. 216.) 
 
 106. Every person claiming to be a creditor under any com- Proof of 
 position, extension or scheme, who has not proved his debt ~~ ts { J n - t - 
 before the approval of such composition, extension or scheme, etc. 
 shall lodge his proof with the trustee thereunder, who shall 
 
 admit or disallow the same. And no creditor shall be- entitled 
 to enforce payment of any part of the sums payable under a 
 composition, extension or scheme unless and until he has proved 
 his debt and his proof has been admitted or allowed (E.E. 219.) 
 
 Cross' References: Sections 13, 65, 45, 53, 74. Rule 149. Forms 
 °3-31 
 
 DISCHARGE OF TKUSTEE. 
 
 . 107. The application of an authorized trustee for a grant of Form of 
 discharge (whether full or partial) shall be made in the pre- application, 
 scribed form to the Eegistrar and shall be verified by the affidavit gee forms 
 of such authorized trustee. Such application shall contain or ^ Md 43 - 
 have attached thereto a complete and itemized statement show- 
 ing all moneys realized by such authorized trustee from and out 
 of the property of the bankrupt or assignor and of all moneys 
 disbursed and expenses incurred and the remuneration claimed 
 by such authorized trustee ; and full particulars, description and 
 value of all property belonging to the estate which has not been 
 sold or realized upon, setting out the reasons why such property 
 has not been sold or realized upon; and full particulars and 
 information with regard to any unsettled disputes, actions or 
 proceedings between such authorized trustee and either the 
 debtor or any creditor or creditors or any other person connected 
 with the estate. 
 
 108. The trustee shall, unless otherwise ordered by the Court Notice of 
 on an ex parte application, at least ten days prior to the hearing application. 
 
660 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Rules of the application send notice in writing' by registered mail to 
 109 to ill the debtor and to each of the creditors. 
 
 Debtor or 
 creditor 
 opposing 
 discharge. 
 
 Registrar 
 may grant 
 unopposed 
 application. 
 
 See forms. 
 
 Trustee to 
 keep docu- 
 ments 
 securely. 
 
 109. (1), If the debtor or any creditor desires to oppose the 
 application for discharge he shall file with the Registrar,, at least 
 two days prior to the hearing or within such further time as the 
 Court may allow, a notice in writing of his intention to oppose 
 the application setting out his reasons therefor and shall serve 
 a copy of the said notice on the authorized trustee, within the 
 time aforesaid. 
 
 (2) If the application for discharge is. not opposed the 
 Registrar may either grant or refuse the same. If the, applica- 
 tion is opposed the same shall be adjourned for hearing before 
 a judge. 
 
 110. The authorized trustee shall keep, for a period of at 
 least six years from the date of declaring a final dividend all 
 current books of record and important documents of the estate 
 of the bankrupt or authorized assignor. After the expiration of 
 such period the trustee may destroy unimportant books and 
 documents but shall continue to keep for a further period of 
 fourteen years from the date thereof all title papers relating to 
 real or immovable estate, important documents under seal and 
 such other books and papers which in the judgment of the 
 trustee should be kept. During the said periods the trustee 
 shall at all times produce and dispose of all books and papers 
 in his possession as ordered by the Court. 
 
 Cross References: Sections 41, 15, 17(1), 65. Rule 149. Forms 
 42, 43, 44. While section 41(1) provides for the discharge of the 
 trustee from further performance of all or any of his duties with respect 
 to the estate, neither that section nor the Rules makes any provision 
 for the vesting in some other person of the property vested in the trustee. 
 See where an adjudication is annulled sections 62.(2)., 13 (IS). The 
 debtor is entitled to any surplus remaining after discharge of his obli- 
 gations, section 38. 
 
 Provisions 
 in case of 
 false bidding 
 in Quebec. 
 
 111. In the case of the sale of immovable property in the 
 Province of Quebec by the trustee, if the purchaser has not paid 
 the whole of the purchase price or given security when he may 
 lawfully do so under the provisions of the Code of Civil Proce- 
 dure for the Province of Quebec, the trustee may obtain from 
 the Court an order for the resale of the property ; the purchaser 
 may however prevent the resale for false bidding by paying to 
 the trustee, before such resale, the amount of his bid with the 
 interest accrued by reason of his default and all costs incurred 
 thereby ; if a resale takes place the false bidder is liable to the 
 trustee for the difference between the amount of his bid and the 
 price brought on the. resale with all costs incurred by reason of 
 his default for the payment of which on application of the 
 
TEE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 661 
 
 trustee, the Court may make an order against the false bidder; Rules 
 if the price obtained on the resale is greater, it goes to the 112 tolls 
 benefit of the estate. 
 
 Cross References: Section 20(3) (•&). 
 
 MEETING OF CREDITORS. 
 
 n -: i 
 
 112. (1) Where a meeting of creditors is called by notice, Non- 
 
 the proceedings had and resolutions passed at such meeting ^ c ^^^bj 
 shall, unless the Court otherwise orders, be valid, notwithstand- creditor. 
 ing that some creditors shall not have received the notice sent to 
 them and notwithstanding the inadvertent omission to send such 
 notice to one or more creditors. (E.R. 243.) 
 
 (2) Where a meeting of creditors is adjourned, the adjourned Adjourn- 
 meeting shall be held at the same place as the original place of ment - 
 meeting, unless in the resolution for adjournment another place 
 is specified. (E.R. 248.) 
 
 113. A debtor who is required by a trustee to attend any Payment to 
 meeting of creditors (other than the first . meeting) and who debtor of 
 resides at a distance of more than ten miles from the place of expenses 
 such meeting, shall be entitled to be paid for such attendance 
 
 the like conduct money and expenses as if he were a witness 
 required to attend in Court or for the purpose of being examined. 
 
 114. Eivery class of creditors shall express its views and Disputes 
 wishes separately from every other class and the effect to be creditors to 
 
 • given to such views and wishes shall, in case of any dispute and be settled 
 subject to the provisions of the Act, be in the discretion of the by Court. 
 Court having regard to the financial condition of the debtor. 
 
 Cross References: Sections 42, 77, 83, 84, 2(m). Rule 146. 
 Forms 45, 46. Tariff 89-91. See as to quorum: In re Thomas ex parte 
 Warner (1911), 55 Sol. J. 482. 
 
 PROOF OF CLAIMS. 
 
 115. In any case in which it shall appear from the debtor's Workmen's 
 statement of affairs that there are numerous claims for wages w *? e 
 by workmen and others employed by the debtor, it shall be suffi- 
 cient if one proof for all such claims is made either by the debtor, See fom 48 - 
 or his foreman, or the book-keeper of the debtor, or some other 
 person on behalf of all such creditors. Such proof shall have 
 annexed thereto, as forming part thereof, a schedule setting 
 forth the names of the workmen and others, and the amounts 
 severally due to them. Any proof made in compliance with this 
 Rule shall have the same effect as if separate proofs had been 
 made by each of the said workmen and others. (E.R. 251.) 
 
662 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Rules 
 116 to 119 
 
 Notice of 
 admission 
 of proof. 
 
 116. Where a creditor's proof has been admitted the notice 
 of dividend shall be sufficient notification to such creditor of 
 such admission. (E.E. 261.) 
 
 Cross References: Sections 45, 46, 53, 37. Rule 117. Forms 
 47, 48. 
 
 DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS. 
 
 Form and 117. The appeal of a claimant from the trustee's decision 
 
 service under section 53 of the Act shall be by notice of motion to a 
 
 or notice ~ 
 
 judge and the trustee shall be served with a copy thereof in the 
 See form 51. ordinary manner provided by these Rules. The judge shall 
 hear and dispose, of the appeal summarily on affidavits or viva 
 voce evidence or both as to the judge shall seem best. 
 
 Costs of 
 appeal. 
 
 118. The trustee shall in no case be personally liable for 
 costs in relation to an appeal from his decision rejecting or dis- 
 allowing any proof wholly or in part. (E.E. 263.) 
 
 Cross References: Sections 53, 65, 74. Rules 116, 54(3), 119. 
 Form 51. See In re Huntly ex parte Goldstein (1917), H. B. R. 209. 
 
 Form and 
 service of 
 notice of 
 motion. 
 
 Disposal 
 by judge. 
 
 CONTINGENT OE UNLIQUIDATED CLAIMS. 
 
 119. Where a contingent claim has been filed with a trustee, 
 or one in the nature of unliquidated damages arising by reason 
 of a contract, promise or breach of trust, and the trustee under 
 the provisions of section 20 of the Act has been unable to make 
 a compromise or other arrangement satisfactory to the inspectors 
 in respect thereto, the trustee shall apply to a judge, by way of 
 notice of motion, to value the claim, serving the claimant with 
 a copy of the notice of motion in the ordinary manner provided 
 by these rules. The trustee, shall prior to the hearing of the 
 motion file with 'the registrar a copy of the claim in question, 
 and an affidavit or affidavits by the trustee, the debtor or of 
 some other person having knowledge of the claim setting out 
 as full particulars and information as to the claim as have been 
 ascertained, also setting out what steps (if any) were taken to 
 make a compromise or other arrangement in respect of the claim, 
 and particulars of any offer of compromise or arrangement made 
 by the trustee with the permission of the inspectors, and such 
 other facts as the trustee deems advisable. The judge shall 
 hear and dispose of the matter summarily and either on affidavits 
 or viva voce evidence or both as to the judge shall seem best. 
 
 Cross References: Sections 20, 44, 65. Rules 14-19. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 663 
 
 SETTLEMENTS AND PREFERENCES. 
 
 120. Applications by a trustee, or any person, to set aside Rules 
 or avoid under the Act, or any other Act or law,' any settlement, 120 to 122 
 conveyance, transfer, security or payment, or to declare for or Form and 
 against the title of the trustee to any property adversely claimed, service of 
 and any proceedings under " The Winding-Up Act " against application, 
 any past or present director, manager, liquidator, receiver, em- 
 ployee, or officer of any company, against whom a receiving 
 
 order has been made, or which has made an authorized assign- 
 ment, shall be to a Judge in chambers by notice of motion 
 served in the ordinary manner as provided by these rules. The 
 Judge may proceed in a summary manner to try the question Disposal 
 or issue in the case or may adjourn the hearing, or may direct by judge, 
 or settle any question or issue to be tried, or may give such 
 directions for the preparation and filing of pleadings and for 
 the trial of such question or issue, or may make such other order 
 in the premises as to the judge shall seem best. 
 
 121. Any application or notice of motion under the preced- Lis pendens, 
 ing rule may contain a description of the land (if any) in ques- 
 tion, and upon filing the same or a copy thereof, signed by the 
 
 solicitor of the applicant, with the proper officer, a certificate 
 of lis pendens may be issued for registration, and in case the 
 said application or motion is refused in whole or in part, a 
 certificate of such order may be issued for registration. 
 
 Cross References: Sections 6(1), 7, 63; 29-35, 3, 71(3), 65, 2(0), 
 66(2). Rules 14-19, 53, 152. 
 
 Rule 120 is framed in wide terms. See notes to the jurisdiction of 
 the Court in section 63 on the question of declarations for or against 
 the title of the trustee to property adversely claimed. 
 
 In neither the Act nor the Rules is there the counterpart of section 
 123 of The Winding-up Act, R. S. C. 1906, c. 144, which deals with sum- 
 mary proceedings against a past or present director, manager, liquidator, 
 receiver, employee or officer. Until such a rule is enacted it would appear 
 that the proper practice is to apply for leave under section 2(o), to pro- 
 ceed under The Winding-up Act in any case where it is desired to take 
 advantage of section 123 of that Act. 
 
 Under Rule 120, a mortgage may be set aside as fraudulent and 
 void in a summary way upon affidavit evidence : In re Levine & Flux- 
 gold (1921), 1 G. B.'R. 479; 20 O. W. N. 167 (Orde, J.) ; and so may 
 an assignment, which is void under section 9 : Bartley's Trustee v. Hill 
 (1921), 20 O. W. N. 170 (Middleton, J.). Senible, as the rule provides 
 a summary remedy, an action asking for the relief which might be had 
 on motion under the rule, will be dismissed with costs : Bartley's Trustee 
 v. Hill, supra. 
 
 CONTRIBUTORIES TO INSOLVENT CORPORATIONS. 
 
 122. The demand of an authorized trustee on any contribu- Form of 
 tory shall be in the prescribed form and there shall be no duty demand, 
 imposed on the authorized trustee to make demands on a pro See form 37. 
 
664 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Rules rata basis so far as the oontributbories <of a debtor are concerned 
 123 to 127 or to adjust rights as between contributories. 
 
 Judgment 
 by default, 
 
 128. If a contributory does not pay the authorized trustee 
 the amount demanded and does not give notice in writing, to the 
 trustee, disputing the demand within the time andin the manner 
 provided by the Act, the authorized trustee may from and after 
 See form 38. the expiration of thirty days from the date of service of the 
 demand, make an ex parte application to the 'Court in the pre- 
 scribed form for judgment against the contributory and the 
 Court may on such application, without notice to the contribu- 
 tory, give judgment in favour of the trustee for the amount 
 demanded or such amount as the Court finds justly owing and 
 for the costs of the application. 
 
 Procedure 124. In the case where a contributory has given netice in 
 
 contributory wr ^ n S *° the trustee disputing the demand, within the time 
 disputes and in the manner provided by the Act, the trustee may, from 
 demand. an( j a ft e r the expiration of thirty days from the date of service 
 of the demand, make application to the' Court in the prescribed 
 form for judgment against the contributory, giving the eontribu- 
 See form 38. tory at least four days' notice of such application, and the Court 
 on the hearing of the. application may proceed in a summary 
 way to try the question or issue in the case or may adjourn the 
 hearing or may direct and settle any question or issue to be 
 tried between the authorized trustee and the contributory or 
 may give such directions for the preparation and filing of plead- 
 ings or for the trial of such question or issue or may make such 
 other order' in the premises as to the Court shall seem best. 
 
 More than 
 one contri- 
 butory may 
 be included. 
 
 Trustee to 
 file papers 
 on hearing. 
 
 Execution 
 may be 
 stayed. 
 
 125. The authorized trustee may include in any application 
 more than one contributory. 
 
 126. At least two days before the hearing of any such appli- 
 cation the authorized trustee shall file with the proper officer the 
 verified statement of the affairs of the debtor ; an estimate of the 
 authorized trustee as to the realizable value of all property of 
 the debtor, and a list of all proved or provable claims against the 
 estate of the debtor in so far as the authorized trustee is able to 
 ascertain. 
 
 127. If it should appear to the Court that the issue of 
 immediate execution under any judgment recovered or entered 
 by an authorized trustee against a contributory, would be an 
 undoubted hardship on the contributory or would be unjust or 
 inequitable, the Court may, on the application or request of the 
 contributory and on such terms as to security or otherwise as the 
 Court deems advisable, order that execution be stayed pending 
 the adjustment of ' rights between contributories or for such 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 665 
 
 period as to the Court shall seem best. (W. U. Act, E. S. C. Rules 
 1906, c. 144, s. 60) . 128 to 132 
 
 128. In ease a contributory desires to have the Court adjust Procedure on 
 rights and liabilities as between contributories he may make ofnghtsf 114 
 application to the Court in the prescribed form setting out his between 
 grounds in an affidavit in the prescribed form. He shall giye at f^^s hu ' 
 least four days' notice of such application to all other contribu- ' 
 tories from whom he claims contributions. The Court may on fj andTo 
 an ex parte application direct the method of service of said 
 notice, whether by personal service, mail or otherwise, as to the 
 Court may seem best. 
 
 12&. . The Court may on any such application order any one Court to 
 or more of the contributories of the debtor to pay into Court ad ^ ust 
 such amounts as may be found by the Judge to be just and 
 equitable and in default of payment of the amount so found' 
 the Court may give judgment against any defaulting contribu- 
 tory directing payment of such amount to the applicant or to 
 the trustee or otherwise and may dispose of the costs of such 
 application. 
 
 130. All moneys paid into Court shall be adjusted, divided Payment 
 and paid out according to the directions of the Judge and where J^eys. 
 the Judge deems advisable such moneys or any portion thereof 
 may be paid out to the authorized trustee. 
 
 Cross References: Section 36. Forms 37 to 40. 
 
 These rules taken with section 36 provide a more flexible, expeditious 
 and a less costly method of procedure than is given under The Winding-up 
 Act. It will be some time before decisions appear in any number on 
 this new procedure. Until such decisions are obtained, it has been 
 thought better not to enter into a discussion of the questions connected 
 with the subject of contributories, but to refer the reader for these 
 matters to the standard works on Company Law. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF DEBTOB AND OTHEES. 
 
 131. Examinations under section fifty-six of the Act or any Procedure. 
 other examination may be held before a Eegistrar or before any 
 person or officer who is qualified or authorized to hold examina- 
 tions for discovery or of judgment debtors in accordance with 
 the Eules, for the time being in force in civil actions or matters 
 of the Court in the bankruptcy district or division in which the 
 examination is held or to be held or before such other person as 
 the Court on an ex parte application therefor mav order. (Cf. 
 E.B. 191.) 
 
 138. Such examination may be held in the bankruptcy dis- place of 
 Met or division in which the debtor or other person to be examination. 
 
666 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Rules 
 133 to 137 
 
 examined resides or in which he is served with the appointment 
 for examination, or in which the debtor, or such other person, 
 resided or carried on business at the date of the receiving order 
 or authorized assignment, notwithstanding that such Bankruptcy 
 district or division may not be the same district or division in 
 which the bankruptcy of the debtor occurred or in which the 
 debtor made an authorized assignment or in which the proceed- 
 ings are being carried on; or the examination may be held at 
 such time and place and in such bankruptcy district or division 
 in Canada as the 'Court on application may order. Such applica- 
 tion, unless the Court otherwise directs, may be made ex parte. 
 
 Appoint- 133. Any such registrar, person or officer empowered to hold 
 
 mentfor. examinations may grant, in duplicate, an appointment for 
 See form 62. examination fti the form provided by the Appendix or in form 
 to like effect. 
 
 Service. 134. A duplicate of such appointment shall be served upon 
 
 the debtor or person to be examined at least forty-eight hours 
 before the time of examination. 
 
 Cross References: Sections 56, 64(5) (6), 63(1), 4(4) (11), 71, 
 83. Kules 11, 34-49, 149, 143. Forms 62-64, 
 
 See as to service "beyond the jurisdiction : In re Wen&t ex parte 0. li. 
 (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 733 ; 61 L. T. 286 ; 6 Mor. 127 ; and see B. E. 183. 
 
 Service may, it is considered, be ,by registered prepaid post. Sec 
 section 83: In re McGrath ex parte 0. B. (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 466; 62 
 L. T. 122 ; 7 Mor. 20. 
 
 Application. 
 
 Appeals. 
 
 Evidence 
 in answer 
 to report. 
 
 DISCHARGE. 
 
 135'. (1) In any case in which an application is made to the 
 Court by a debtor for his discharge and the trustee reports to the 
 Court any fact, matter or circumstance which would, under the 
 Act, justify the Court in refusing an unconditional order of 
 discharge, such application shall he deemed to be an opposed' 
 application within the meaning of section sixty-five (2) (c) of 
 the Act. (E. E. 228). 
 
 (2) The Court may, on the. application by a debtor for his 
 discharge, cause the debtor to be brought before the Court for 
 examination or further examination. 
 
 136. An appeal to the Appeal Court shall lie at the instance 
 of the trustee, the debtor and or at the instance of any creditor 
 or creditors, who oppose the discharge, from any order of the 
 Court made upon the application for discharge. (E. E. 229). 
 
 137. When a debtor intends to dispute any statement with 
 regard to his conduct and affairs contained in the trustee's 
 report he shall at or before the time appointed for hearing the 
 application for discharge give notice in -writing to the trustee 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 667 
 
 specifying the statements in the report, if any, which he pro- Eules 
 poses at the hearing to dispute. Any. creditor who intends to 138 10 141 
 oppose the discharge of a debtor on grounds other than those 
 mentioned in the trustee's report shall give notice of the 
 intended opposition, stating the grounds thereof, to the trustee 
 and to the debtor at or before the time appointed for the hearing 
 of the application. In either of such cases the judge or regis- 
 trar may enlarge the hearing of the application as deemed advis- 
 able. (E.E. 231). 
 
 138. (1) A debtor shall not be entitled to have any of the Costs of 
 costs of or incidental to his application for discharge allowed to a PP llcatlon - 
 him out of his estate. (E.E. 232). 
 
 (2) If the debtor does not make his application for discharge 
 
 .until after the trustee has paid the final dividend, he shall, 
 
 before the order of discharge is signed or delivered out, pay to 
 
 the trustee such remuneration and solicitor's costs as the Court' 
 
 may allow. 
 
 139. (1) Where the Court grants an order of discharge Orders 
 conditionally upon the debtor consenting to judgment being conditional 
 entered against him by the trustee for the balance or any part to judgment, 
 of the balance of the debts provable under the bankruptcy or ~ . „. 
 authorized assignment which is not satisfied at the date of 75 and 76. 
 his discharge, the order of discharge shall not be signed, 
 completed or delivered out until the debtor has given the required 
 
 consent. The judgment shall be entered in the Court having 
 jurisdiction in bankruptcy in the district or division in which 
 the order of discharge is granted. 
 
 (2) If the debtor does not give the required consent within 
 ten days of the making of the conditional oraer the Court may, 
 on the application of the trustee, revoke the order or make such 
 other order as the Court may think fit. (E.R. 233.) 
 
 140. The order of the Court made on an application for dis- order, 
 charge shall be dated on the day on which it is made, and shall 
 
 take effect from the day on which the order is drawn up and 
 signed; but such order shall not be delivered out or gazetted See forms 
 until after the expiration of the time allowed for appeal, or, if an of orders, 
 appeal be entered, until after the decision of the Appeal Court 
 thereon. (E.R. 234.) 
 
 141. (1) An application by the trustee for leave to issue Application 
 execution on a judgment entered pursuant to a conditional order for leave 
 
 of discharge shall be made to the Court in writing, and shall execution, 
 state shortly the grounds on which the application is made. 
 
 (2) The trustee shall give not less than four days' notice of 
 the application to the debtor, and shall at the same time furnish 
 him with a copy of the application. (E.R. 236.) 
 
668 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Rules 
 142 to 144 
 
 142, Where a debtor is discharged subject to the condition 
 that judgment shall be entered against him, or subject to any 
 other condition as to his future earnings or after-acquired pro- 
 perty, it shall be his duty until such judgment or condition is 
 satisfied, from time to time, to give the trustee such information 
 
 Accounts 
 of after- 
 acquired 
 property. 
 
 „ , ™ as he may require with respect to his earnings and after-acquired 
 property and income, and not less than once a year to file in the 
 Court and with the trustee a statement showing the particulars 
 of any property or income he may have acquired subsequent to 
 his discharge.- (E.E. 237.) 
 
 143. Any statement of after-acquired property or income 
 filed by a debtor whose discharge has been granted subject to 
 conditions, shall be verified by afiidav"t, and the trustee may 
 require the debtor to attend before an examiner to be examined 
 on oath with reference to the statements contained in such affi- 
 davit, or as to his earnings, income, after-acquired property, or 
 dealings. Where a debtor neglects to file such- affidavit-or to 
 attend for examination when required so to do, or properly to 
 answer all such questions as the Court may decide to be proper, 
 the Court may, on the application of the trustee, rescind the 
 order of discharge. (E.E. 238.) 
 
 Verification 
 of statement 
 of after- 
 acquired 
 property. 
 
 Application 
 for modifi- 
 cation 
 of order. 
 
 144. Where after the expiration of one year from the date 
 of any order -made upon a debtor's application for a discharge, 
 the debtor applies to the Court to modify the terms of the order 
 on the ground that there is no reasonable probability of his being 
 in a position to comply with the terms of such order, he shall 
 give 14 days' notice by mail of the hearing of the application to 
 the trustee and to all his creditors. (E.E. 239.) 
 
 Cross References: Sections 58-60, 65, 73, 74, 2 (<?). Rules 68-71, 
 2, 131-134. . Forms 66-77, 81. 
 
 The English Rule corresponding with Rule 136, which gave a right 
 of appeal to the Board of Trade, but not to the creditors, was held to be 
 intra vires: In re Stainton em parte Board of Trade (1887), 10 Q. B. D. 
 182 ; 57 L. T. 202 ; 4 Mor. 242. 
 
 Rule 138(1) does not apply to the costs of a successful appeal by 
 a bankrupt from a refusal to grant a discharge : In re and ex parte 
 Nicholas (1890), 7 Mor. 54. 
 
 If the debtor does not give the consent referred to in Rule 139 he 
 cannot, on an application under Rule 139(2) to revoke, dictate to the 
 Court that the only order to be made is to suspend his discharge for two 
 years. The Court might suspend his discharge till he had paid a dividend 
 of 50 cents on the dollar ; but it cannot repeat its former order to suspend 
 the discharge until the bankrupt consents: In re Gaskell (1904), 2 
 K. B. 478 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 656 ; 11 Mans. 125. 
 
 The fact that the debtor has not complied with the terms of Rule 
 142, is not a bar to an application by him under the last paragraph of 
 section 58(5), for a modification of the terms of the Court's order: In 
 re Rooerts & Co. ex parte Bonzoline Mfg. Co. (1904), 2 K. B. 299; 73 
 L.-J. K. B. 724; 11 Mans. 134. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. qqq 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 145. No person shall, as against the trustee, be entitled to Rule 145 
 
 withhold possession of the books of account belonging to the ;r~ r. 
 
 debtor or to set up any Men thereon. (E.R. 383.) on debtor's 
 
 books. 
 
 Cross References: Sections 17, 56. 
 
 By this rule the trustee is entitled to possession of the books o£ 
 account of the debtor, notwithstanding the lien of any person. 
 
 The right to possession must be distinguished from the right to 
 inspection given by section 50(4). Under that section the trustee has 
 a right to inspect any documents, even though they are subject to a lien ; 
 but the section confers no right of possession : In re Andrew Motherwell 
 of Canada, Ltd. (1921), 20 O. W. N. 306 (Holmested R.) ; In re Toleman 
 ex parte Bramble (1880) , 13 Ch. D. 885. 
 
 "What are the books of account of the debtor is a question o£ fact. 
 The asignment of an interest in, a business carries the interest in the 
 books of account: In re West ex parte Good, (1882), 21 Ch. D. 868; 51 
 L. J. Ch. 831 ; and an assignment of book debts- will carry the books : 
 In re White & Co. ex parte O. R. (1884), 1 Mor. 77. 
 
 The rule is to be construed strictly. It does not extend to vouchers, 
 counterfoils of cheques, books, correspondence and other papers, although 
 such documents would be of material assistance to the trustee in pre- 
 paring his accounts of the bankrupt's estate: In re Winslow e-r parte 
 Godfrey (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 696; 55 I,. J. Q. B. 238.; 3' Mior. CO. Nor 
 does it apply to books of account in which, the debtor has a joint property 
 with third parties : In re Burnand ex parte Baker, Sutton & Go. (1904) . 
 2 K. B. 68 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 413 ; 11 Mans. 113 ; but the trustee is entitled 
 to reasonable facilities for inspecting them S. C. 
 
 Vouchers for payments made by solicitors for their client may be 
 the property of the client: In re Ellis and Ellis (1909) , 25 T. L. R. 38. 
 
 A solicitor has a lien over documents of his client on which he 
 has spent skill and' labour ; but a solicitor of a company cannot 
 acquire a lien over books which ought not according to the constitution 
 of the company to be placed in his, hands : In re Anglo-Maltese Hydraulic 
 Dock Co., Ltd. (1885), 54 L. J. Ch. 730. A solicitor has a lien on 
 papers in an action if he be discharged by client, secus if he discharges 
 himself: In re Rapid Road Transit Co. (1909), 1 Ch. 96; and a trustee 
 in bankruptcy or winding up has no higher right in this regard than the- 
 bankrupt, the bankruptcy or winding up of the client in the action being 
 equivalent to the discharge of the solicitor and entitling, him to the lien : 
 In re Moss, 1 Ch. D. 130 ; In re Rapid Road Transit Co., supra. The 
 winding up or bankruptcy of a client will not defeat any valid lien 
 existing at the time of the winding-up or bankruptcy : In re Capital Eire 
 Insurance Association (1883) , 24 Ch. D. 408 ; In re Rapid Road- Transit 
 Co., supra; Re Hemsworth ex parte Underwood (1845), DeG. 190. 
 Where documents are recovered by solicitors by negotiation and corres- 
 pondence on the instructions of the trustee the solicitors have a lien on 
 them for costs incurred under those instructions ; but on the recovery of 
 the documents no lien attaches in their favour for costs incurred under 
 similar instructions given by the bankrupt prior to his bankruptcy ; the 
 rule with respect to costs of negotiation, being in. this respect different 
 from that with, respect to costs incurred in an action or arbitration : 
 Heguerditchian v. Lightlound (1917), 2 K. B. 298 ; 86 L. J. K. B. 889 ; 
 (1917), H. B. E. 176. 
 
 A solicitor cannot assert against dooumen.fcs which came into his 
 hands during the winding up of any such lien as will interfere with 
 
670 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Rules tlie prosecution of the winding up : In re Capital Fire Insurance Asso- 
 146 to 151 ciation (1883), 24 Ch D. 40S. , 
 
 Non- 
 compliance 
 with Rules. 
 
 146. Non-compliance with any of these' Kules, or with any 
 rule of practice for the time being in force, shallnot render any 
 proceeding void unless the Court shall so direct, but such pro- 
 ceeding may be set aside, either wholly or in part, as irregular, 
 or amended or otherwise dealt with in such manner and upon 
 such terms as the Court may think fit. (E.E. 385.) 
 
 Cross References: Sections 12, 68(4), 84. Rules 30, 74, 152. 
 
 Interest 
 on deposit 
 of trustee. 
 
 Reckoning 
 of days. 
 
 Reckoning 
 of days. 
 
 Reckoning 
 of time. 
 
 Reckoning 
 of time. ' 
 
 147. Where, an authorized trustee provides the security 
 , required by section 14(4) of the Act in cash, the amount 
 
 thereof shall be paid by the authorized trustee to the Eeceiver 
 General, and the authorized trustee shall receive interest thereonj 
 payable yearly at the rate of three per cent, per annum. , 
 
 148. In all cases in which any number of days not directed 
 to be clear days is prescribed by the Act or by these rules, or by 
 any notice or order in reference to any proceeding under the 
 Act, the same shall be reckoned exclusively of the date from 
 which the computation is made, but inclusively of the day on 
 which the act or proceeding referred to is to be done or taken. 
 
 149. Where notice is to be given or service is required to be 
 made a certain number of days before the day on which some- 
 thing is to be done, if the words "clear days" or "at least" 
 or " not less than " are used, both the day of service or of giving 
 notice and the day on which such thing is to be done shall be 
 excluded from the computation. 
 
 150. Where any limited time less than six days from or after 
 any date or event is appointed or allowed for doing any act or 
 taking any proceeding, days on which the offices of the court are 
 closed shall not be reckoned in the computation of such limited 
 time. (E.K.4(2).) 
 
 151. Where the time for doing any act or taking any pro- 
 ceeding expires on a Sunday or other day on which the offices 
 of the Court are closed, and by reason thereof such act or pro- 
 ceeding cannot be done or taken on that day, such act or proceed- 
 ing shall, so far as regards the time of doing or taking same, be 
 held to be duly done or taken on the next day on which the said . 
 offices are open. 
 
 Cross References: Sections 68(5), 82. Rule 51. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 671 
 
 152. The general practice of the Court in civil actions or Eulei52 
 matters before it, including the course of proceedings and prac- G neral ' 
 tice in judges 5 chambers, shall in cases not provided for by the practice 
 Act arid amendments thereto, or these rules, and so far as the un ? e ^4 ct 
 same are applicable and not inconsistent with the said Act or 
 these rules, apply to all proceedings under the said Act. 
 
 Cross References: Sections 2(1), 63. Rules 2, 25, 39, 43, 65, 71, 
 131. 
 
 As the filing of a petition in bankruptcy is equivalent to taking an 
 initiatory step in a civil proceeding litigants in bankruptcy in Ontario 
 may act in person, but they cannot aqt by any other persons, except a 
 practising solicitor ; thus an authorized trustee cannot file a petition 
 for another person: In re X. (1920), 1 C. B. R. 459 ; 19 O. W. N. 12 
 (Holmested, R.), but he may apply to the Court to approve a composi- 
 tion agreement under section 13(5), and may therefore apply for an 
 order appointing a time for hearing an application to approve such an 
 agreement : In re Shaw (1920) , 19 O. W. N. 153 ; but in contentious 
 cases it would appear advisable that application to approve should be 
 made by a solicitor : In re Shaw, supra. 
 
673 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 PART I. 
 
 
 IOEMS. 
 
 
 Forms Nos. No. 1. 
 1.8 
 
 
 General Tiila. 
 
 
 
 . Court of 
 
 In Bankruptcy 
 
 
 In the matter of the Bankruptcy 
 
 
 of 
 
 
 or 
 
 
 
 
 DpMnrl. 
 
 Cross References : E. 7. 
 
 wo. a. 
 
 Creditors' Petition. 
 {Title.) 
 I, CD. of 
 
 debtor. 
 
 {or we, CD. of ) 
 
 (a) Insert hereby petition the Court that {a) ' 
 
 nameof f t h e of 
 
 in the Province of lately carrying on 
 
 business at {or residing at) the 
 
 of in the 
 
 of be adjudged bankrupt and that 
 
 a receiving order may be made in respect of his estate, and say : — 
 1. That the said A.B. has at some time during the six months 
 next preceding the presentation of this petition carried on busi- 
 ness {or now resides) at 
 
 within the jurisdiction of this Court or (1) The greater portion 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 673 
 
 of the property of the said A.B. is situate at Form Wo. 2 
 
 within the jurisdiction of this Court. ■ 
 
 2. That the said S.B. is justly and truly indebted to me (or 
 
 us in the aggregate) in the sum of $ (set out 
 
 the amount of debt or debts and the consideration) . 
 
 3. That I (or we) do not, nor does any person on my (or our) 
 behalf hold any security on the said debtor's estate, or on any 
 part thereof, for the payment of the said sum. 
 
 or 
 
 That I hold security for the payment of (or part of) the 
 said sum (but that I will give up such security for the benefit of 
 the creditors of A.B. in the event of his being adjudged bank- 
 rupt) (or and I estimate the value of such security at 
 the sum of $ ) . 
 
 That I, CD., one of your petitioners, hold security for the 
 payment of, etc. 
 
 That I, E.F., another of your petitioners, hold security for 
 the payment of, etc. 
 
 4: That A.B., within six months before the date of the pre- 
 sentation of this petition, has committed the following act (or 
 acts) of bankruptcy, namely: — (here set out the nature and 
 dalle or dates of the act or acts of bankruptcy relied on). 
 
 5. That of 
 
 is an authorized trustee 
 
 under the Bankruptcy Act with authority in the locality of the 
 debtor and is fit and qualified to act as trustee in respect of the 
 estate of the said debtor. 
 
 Dated this day of , 19. . 
 
 (Signed) C. D. 
 E. F. 
 Signed by the petitioner 
 in my presence. 
 
 Signature of Witness, 
 
 Address, 
 
 Description. 
 
 Notice of Hearing. 
 
 (Title may be omitted if notice endorsed on Petition) . 
 
 Take notice that a Petition that you, A. B., of 
 
 be adjudged bankrupt and that a receiving order may be made 
 hi respect of your estate will be presented and heard before The 
 
 Honourable Mr. Justice '. 
 
 in Chambers at in the of 
 
674 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Forms Nos. at the hour of o'clock in the noon or 
 
 3. 4 so soon thereafter as the Petition can be heard. 
 
 If you do not appear at the hearing the Court may make 
 a receiving order and adjudge you bankrupt on such proof of the 
 statements in the petition as the Court shall think sufficient. 
 
 Dated at this day of . . . ,. 19. . 
 
 To A. B. (name of debtor) . 
 
 Petitioner (or A. B. 
 Solicitor for Petitioner). 
 
 Cross References: ss. 4, 3, 2 (x), 46. BE. 2, 50, 74-84. FF. 
 47, 48. E.P. 11. 
 
 No. 3. 
 
 Affidavit of Truth of Statements in Petition 
 (Title.) 
 
 I, the petitioner named in the petition hereunto annexed, 
 make oath and say : — 
 
 1. That I am the 
 
 2. That such of the statements in the said petition as relate 
 to my own acts and deeds are true, and such of the statements 
 as relate to the acts and deeds of any other person or persons, I 
 believe to be true. 
 
 Sworn at, etc. 
 
 CD. 
 
 Cross References: SS. 4(2), 79. BR. 31, 152. E.F. 12. 
 
 No. 4. 
 
 Affidavit of Truth of Statement in Joint Petition. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 We, C. D., B. P., G. H., etc., the petitioners named in the 
 petition hereunto annexed, severally make oath and say — 
 And first I, the said C. D., for myself say: — 
 
 1. That A. B. is justly and truly indebted to me in the sum 
 
 of dollars as stated in the said before-mentioned 
 
 petition. 
 
 2. That the said A. B. committed the act (or acts) of bank- 
 ruptcy stated to have been committed by him in the said before- 
 mentioned petition. 
 
 3. That A. B. has resided (or carried on business) at 
 
 (here verify facts set out in paragraph 1 of Petition). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 675 
 
 And I, the said B. F., for myself say : — Forms Kos. 
 
 4. That A. B. is justly and truly indebted to me in the sum 5 » 6 
 
 f dollars as stated in the said before-mentioned 
 
 petition. 
 
 And I, the said G. H., for myself say — 
 
 ■ 5. That A. B. is, etc. (here follow paragraph b). 
 
 Sworn by the deponents CD. 
 
 C. D., B. F. and G. H., etc. E. F. 
 
 G. H. 
 Cross References: SS. 4, 68(7), 79. EB. 31, 152. EF. 13. 
 
 No. 5. 
 
 Affidavit of Service of Petition. 
 (Title.) 
 
 I, L. M., of make oath and say : — 
 
 1. That I did on day the ....... day of 
 
 . 19. . ., serve the above named A. B. (or the partners 
 
 .of the above-mentioned firm of ) with a copy of the 
 
 above-mentioned petition by delivering the same personally to 
 the said A. B. (or C. D. a partner, or E. F. a person having at 
 the time of service the control or management of the partner- 
 ship business there) (or the President, Vice-President, Secre- 
 tary, Treasurer, Manager (or other officer of the debtor if 
 a Corporation), or upon E. F. (the person having at the time of 
 service the control or management of the business of the Cor- 
 poration) at (place) before the hour of in 
 
 the noon. 
 
 2. A sealed copy of the said petition is hereunto annexed. 
 Sworn, at, etc. 
 
 Note: If the service is effected on one partner on behalf of his 
 firm, or on a person having at the time of service the control and man- 
 agement of the partnership business there or of a business carried on 
 liy any person in a name or style other than his own, the affidavit must 
 after the word "at" contain words "being the principal place of 
 business of the said." 
 
 i References: BE. 77— 84. E.F. 15.' 
 
 No. 6. 
 
 Notice of Substituted Service of Petition. 
 
 (Title.) 
 To A. B. 
 
 Take notice that a bankruptcy petition has been presented 
 against you in this Court by 
 
676 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 ronnNq.7 of and that the Court has 
 
 ' ordered that the sending of a copy of the petition together with 
 a eo.py of the order for substituted service by registered post 
 
 addressed to and/or the publication of 
 
 this notice in the .Gazette and/oT in the 
 
 newspapers {following the terms of the order for substituted 
 service) shall be deemed to be service of the petition upon you; 
 and further take notice that the said petition will be heard by 
 
 this Court on the day of 19 ... . 
 
 at o'clock in the ...... .noon on 
 
 which day you are required to appear, and if you do hot appear 
 the Court may adjudge you bankrupt and may make a receiving 
 order against you in your absence, on such proof of the state- 
 ments in the petition as the Court shall think sufficient. 
 
 The Petition can be inspected by you on application at my 
 office. 
 
 Dated this day of A.D. 19.. . 
 
 Eegistrar. 
 
 Cross References : BE. 77-84. E.F. 16. 
 
 No. 7. 
 
 Order for Substituted Service of a Petition. 
 
 {Title.) 
 
 Upon the application of 
 
 and upon reading the affidavit of 
 
 of .■ 
 
 in the of and 
 
 the Bankruptcy Petition filed the day of 
 
 * A.D. 19 
 
 It is ordered that the sending of a copy of the above-men- 
 tioned petition, together with, a copy of this order by registered 
 
 post, addressed to 
 
 at , and/or by publica- 
 tion in the Gazette and/or in the 
 
 -. newspapers of the pre- 
 sentation of such petition and the time and place fixed for 
 hearing the petition shall be, deemed to be good and sufficient 
 service of the said petition on the said 
 
 And that the costs of this application be 
 
 Dated this .' . . .day of 
 
 A.D. 19 
 
 Cross References: EE. 77-84. E.F. 17. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 677 
 
 _ Forms Hos. 
 
 No. 8. 8,9 
 
 Notice by Debtor of Intention to Oppose Petition. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 I, the above A. B., do hereby give you notice that I intend to 
 oppose my being adjudged bankrupt and the making of a receiv- 
 ing order as prayed, and that I intend to dispute the petitioning 
 creditor's debt (or the act of Bankruptcy, or to contend that 
 or as the case may be) (specifying the statements 
 in the petition which he intends to deny or dispute.) 
 
 Dated this day of 19 . . . 
 
 A. B. 
 
 To C. D. of 
 
 and to , 
 
 and to the Eegistrar in Bankruptcy of the said Court. 
 
 Cross References: SS, 4(7) (8). EE. 87-90. E.F. 18. 
 
 No. 9. 
 
 Order to Stay Proceedings on Petition. 
 (Title.) 
 
 Fpon the-hearing of the Bankruptcy petition against A. B. 
 
 of this day, and the said A. B. appearing and 
 
 'denying that he is indebted to the petitioner (when petition 
 presented by more than one creditor, add the name of the credi- 
 tor whose ckbi is denied) in the sum stated in the petition 
 (or alleging that he is indebted to the petitioner in a sum of less 
 amount than five hundred dollars ($500) (or alleging that he is 
 indebted to €. D., one of the petitioners, in a sum less than the 
 sum stated to be due from him in the petition), it is ordered 
 
 that the said A. B. shall within days enter into a 
 
 bond in the penal sum of (the amount of the alleged debt and 
 probable costs or such other sum as the Court may direct) with 
 such sufficient surety or sureties as the Court shall approve of to 
 
 pay (or deposit with the Eegistrar the sum of $ as 
 
 security for the payment of) such sum or sums as shall be recov- 
 ered against the said A. B. by C. D. the petitioner (or one of the 
 petitioners)- in any proceeding taken or continued by him 
 against the said A. B. together with such costs as shall be given 
 by the Court in which the proceedings are had. 
 
 And it is further ordered, that upon the said A. B. entering 
 into the bond aforesaid with such surety or sureties, all pro- 
 ceedings on this petition shall be stayed until after the Court in 
 
678 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Form ,Ko,. 10 which the proceedings shall be taken shall have come to a deci- 
 ^^ sion thereon. 
 
 Dated this day of . : 19 
 
 Cross References: S. 4(7) (8). EE. 89-91, 21-25. FF. 10, 
 11, 12. E.F. 19. 
 
 No. 10. 
 
 # 
 
 Bond on Stay of proceedings, Security, Etc. 
 (Title.) 
 
 Know all men by these presents, that we, A. B. of etc. and 
 C. D. of etc. and E. F. of etc., (or some Guaranty Company 
 approved by Court) are jointly and severally held and firmly 
 
 bound to L. M. of etc., in dollars to be paid to 
 
 the said L. M. or his certain attorney, executors, administrators 
 or assigns. For which, payment to be made we bind ourselves 
 and each and every of us, our and each of our heirs, executors 
 and administrators (or our successors and assigns) jointly and 
 severally, firmly by these presents. 
 
 Sealed with our seals, and dated this 
 
 day of ., one thousand nine hundred 
 
 and ,.. 
 
 Whereas a Bankruptcy petition against the said A. B., having 
 
 been presented to the Court of '. 
 
 he did appear at the hearing of the said petition and deny that 
 he was indebted to the petitioner (or to one or more of the 
 petitioners), (or allege that he was indebted to the petitioner in 
 the sum of ' dollars only, or as the case may be.) 
 
 Now, therefore, the condition of this obligation is such that 
 if the above-bounden A. B., or the said C. D. or E. F., (or 
 Guaranty Company.) shall on demand well and truly pay or 
 cause to be paid to L. M., his attorney or agent, such sum or 
 sums as shall be recovered against the said A. B. by any pro- 
 ceedings taken or continued in any competent Court by the said 
 L. M. for the payment of the debt claimed by him in the said 
 petition, together- with such costs as shall be given to the said 
 L. M. by such Court (or whatever the condition of the bond is), 
 ■this obligation shall be void, otherwise it shall remain in full 
 force. • I 
 
 A. B. (L. S.) 
 C. D. (L. S.) 
 E. F. (L. S.) 
 
 Signed, sealed and delivered by the above bounden in the 
 
 presence of— 
 
 Note: If a deposit of money be made the memorandum should 
 follow the terms of the conditions of the bond. This form may be 
 adapted, to other cases. 
 
 Cross References: S. 4(7) (8). EE. 21-25. FF. 11, 12, 
 E. F. 20. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 679 
 
 Forms Nos. 
 No. 11. 11,12 
 
 Notice of Sureties. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 Take notice that the sureties whom I propose as my security 
 in the above matter (here state the proceedings which have 
 rendered the sureties necessary) are (here state the full names 
 and descriptions of the sureties, and their residence for the last 
 six months, therein mentioning the county or city, places, streets, 
 and members, if any.) , , > 
 
 Dated day of 19. . . 
 
 A. B. 
 L. M. of 
 
 Cross References: >S. 4(7) (8). EE. 21-25. FF. 10, 12. 
 E J. 21. 
 
 No. 12. (a) This 
 
 affidavit 
 Affidavit of Justification (a). not neces- 
 
 sary if 
 (Title \ surety is an 
 
 (.- 1 ,ue 'J approved 
 
 I, E. F. of . , one of the sureties for £ iaranty 
 
 make oath and say : — 
 
 1. That I am a householder (or as the case may be) residing 
 (describing particularly the county or city, the street or place, 
 and the number of the house, if any). 
 
 2. That I am worth property to the amount of $ 
 
 (ike amount required) over and above what will pay my just 
 debts (if security in any other action or for any other purpose, 
 add, and every other sum for which I am now security). 
 
 3. That I am not bail or security in any other matter, action, 
 or proceeding, or for any other person except for C. D., at the 
 
 suit of E. F., in the Court of .in the sum of 
 
 $ ; for G. H. at the suit of I. K., in the Court 
 
 of in the sum of $ (specifying 
 
 tie several actions in which he has become bound.) 
 
 4. That my property, to the amount of the said sum of 
 
 $ (and if security in any other action, etc. over 
 
 and above all other sums for which I am now security as afore- 
 said), consists of (here specify the nature and value of the pro- 
 perty in respect of which the deponent proposes to become bonds- 
 man, as follows), stock in trade, in my business of 
 
 carried on by me at. of the value of $ , 
 
 of good book debts owing to me to the amount of $ . . . 
 
G80 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Terms Nas. of furniture in my house at of the value of 
 
 1814 $ , of a freehold (or leasehold) farm of the 
 
 value of $ situate at occupied by 
 
 or of a dwelling-house of the value of $ 
 
 situate at , occupied by; , (or of 
 
 other property, particularizing each description of property, 
 with the value thereof.) 
 
 5. That I have for the last six months resided at 
 
 (describing the place of such residence, or if lie 
 
 has had more than one residence during that period, state it in 
 the same manner as above directed.) 
 
 Sworn at, etc E. F. 
 
 Cross References: S. 79. RE. 26-33, 152. FF. 10, 11. 
 E.F.22. 
 
 Wo. 13. 
 
 Dismissal of Petition. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 Upon hearing the petition of filed the 
 
 day of 19 ... , and upon reading 
 
 and hearing 
 
 It is ordered that the said petition be dismissed (and that the 
 petitioner do pay to the said A. B. the taxed costs thereof.) 
 
 Dated this day of 19". . . 
 
 Cross References: S. 4(6) (8). R. 91. E.P. 24. 
 
 No. 14. 
 
 Receiving Order. 
 (Title.) 
 
 On the petition of J. S. of 
 
 a creditor, filed the (insert date) and on reading 
 
 and hearing .and it appearing to 
 
 the Court that the following act or acts of bankruptcy has or 
 have been committed, viz. : — (set out the nature and date or 
 dates of the act or acts of bankruptcy on which the Order is 
 made). 
 
 The said A. B. is hereby adjudged bankrupt and a receiving 
 order is hereby made against A. B. (insert name, addresses and 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 631 
 
 description of debtor as set out in petition) and (insert name of Forms Sos. 
 
 authorized trustee) of the of 15 » lC 
 
 is hereby constituted receiver of the estate of the said debtor. 
 
 Date this day of 
 
 Note : If trustee requires debtor to attend at his office, then endorse 
 f6llowing note : The above named debtor is required immediately after 
 the service of this order upon him, to attend the above named authorized 
 trustee at his office at . Such offices are open every week 
 
 day from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., except Saturdays when they close at 1 p.m. 
 
 Indorsement on Order. 
 
 The name and address of the solicitor to the petitioning 
 creditor are [insert name and address). 
 
 Cross References: SS. 4(5), '3. RE. 50, 92-96. E.F. 30. 
 
 No. 15. 
 
 Order appointing Interim Receiver. 
 (Title.) 
 
 Upon" reading the application of 
 
 for the appointment of an Interim Eeceiver and the affidavit 
 
 therein referred to and hearing 
 
 it is ordered that of the 
 
 of in the Province of 
 
 an authorized trustee, be and he is hereby constituted Interim 
 Eeceiver of the property of the said A. B. (here insert direc- 
 tions, if any). 
 
 ' The said authorized trustee is hereby directed to take 
 immediate possession of the property of the said A. B. 
 
 Dated this day of 19. . . 
 
 Cross References: S. 5. BR. 85, 86. E.F. 14. 
 
 No. 16. 
 
 Order of Transfer of Proceedings. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 Upon application of A. B. and upon reading 
 
 and hearing , and it 
 
 appearing to the Court that (state hen special reason or reasons 
 why order is made), that the proceedings in the above matter 
 
682 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Forms Nos; should be transferred from '. . . .to : (or, 
 
 17.18 as the case may be). 
 
 It is hereby ordered that the said proceedings in the above 
 named matter be transferred from the above Court to the Court 
 of the Bankruptcy division of 
 
 Dated this day of 19 . . . 
 
 Cross References: S. 4(11), 71. EE. 11, 12. E.F. 16. 
 
 No. 17. 
 
 Order restraining Action, etc., before Receiving Order. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 Upon the application of . . ■. 
 
 and upon reading , it is ordered that 
 
 L. M. of , shall be restrained 
 
 from taking any further proceedings in the action brought by 
 him (or, upon the judgment recovered or obtained by him) 
 against the said A. B. in (here state the Court in which pro- 
 ceedings are), or, it is ordered that the proceedings in the action 
 (or suit) brought by him against the said A. B. in (here state 
 the Court in which proceedings are) may be proceeded with on 
 (here insert the terms fixed by the Court). 
 
 Dated this day of 19. . . 
 
 Cross References: SS. 6(1), 7'. 
 
 No. 18. 
 
 Assignment for the General Benefit of Creditors. 
 
 This Indenture made (in duplicate) this 
 
 day of A.D. 19 
 
 In Pursuance of " The Bankruptcy Act ' 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 ' hereinafter called " the Debtor " 
 of the first part ; 
 and 
 
 hereinafter called - "the Authorized 
 : Trustee" 
 
 of the second part. 
 
 Whereas th ; Debtor is insolvent and desires to assign and 
 
 deliver to the said Authorized Trustee all his property for dis- 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 683 
 
 tribution among ''.. .creditors in pursuance of the Form Ho. 19 
 
 said Act. 
 
 Now Therefore this Indenture Witnesseth that the 
 debtor doth hereby assign, convey and assure unto the said 
 Trustee, his successors and assigns forever, all his property 
 which is divisible among creditors under and by virtue of the 
 said Act. 
 
 To have and to hold all the said property unto and to the 
 use of the said Trustee his successors and assigns on the trusts 
 and to and for the uses, intents and purposes provided by the 
 said Act. 
 
 Signed and sealed at the of 
 
 in the Province of 
 
 in the presence of 
 
 Witness : 
 
 Cross References: SS. 9, 10, 25. F. 19. 
 
 No. 19. 
 
 Province 
 
 «.! 
 
 of the of 
 
 in the Province of 
 
 To Wit : make oath and say : 
 
 1. That I was present and saw the within Indenture and 
 the duplicate thereof, duly signed, sealed and executed by 
 
 the parties thereto 
 
 at the of 
 
 in the Province of 
 
 2. That I know the said part 
 of the full age of twenty-one years. 
 
 3. That I am a subscribing witness to the said Indenture 
 and duplicate. a 
 
 Sworn before me at the 
 of 
 
 and 
 
 in the Province of 
 
 this 
 
 A.D. 19 
 
 .day of 
 
 A Commissioner in B. E., etc. 
 or A Notary Public in and for the province of 
 
 Cross References: SS. 11(11) (12), 79. 
 
684 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Forms Nos. No. 20. 
 
 20,81 
 
 (a) This Notice to Creditors of First Meeting where Receiving Order or 
 
 notice is Assignment Made, (a) . 
 
 pursuant to 
 
 ^c.ll(|| * The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 In the estate of 
 
 authorized assignor, (or bankrupt) 
 
 Notice is hereby given that A. B. of 
 
 was adjudged bankrupt and a receiving* order made on the 
 
 day of .19. . . 
 
 (or that A. B. of did on the 
 
 day of 19 make an authorized 
 
 assignment to the undersigned). 
 
 Notice is further given that the first meeting of creditors in 
 
 the above estate will be held at 
 
 on the day of 19. . . 
 
 at o'clock in the noon. 
 
 To entitle you to vote thereat proof of your claim must be 
 lodged with me before the meeting is held. 
 
 Proxies to be used at the meeting must be lodged with me 
 prior thereto. 
 
 And further take notice that if you have any claim against 
 the debtor for which you are entitled to rank, proof of such 
 claim must be filed with me within thirty days from the date 
 of this notice, for from and after the expiration of the time 
 fixed by subsection 8 of section 37 of the said Act I shall dis- 
 tribute- the proceeds of the debtor's estate among the parties 
 entitled thereto having regard only to the claims of which I 
 have then notice. 
 
 Dated at this. day of 
 
 19.... 
 
 Authorized Trustee. 
 
 Notb : When mailing this notice to creditors, a form of proof and 
 form of proxy should be enclosed with each notice. 
 
 Cross References: SS. 11(4), 42, 45. EK. 112, 148, 149. 
 PF. 22, 45, 48. 
 
 No. 21. 
 
 Notice to Creditors where Debtor submits offer of Composition, 
 Extension or Scheme. 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 Re (James Brown), 
 
 Take notice that of the 
 
 of , in the Province 
 
 of ,has submitted to me for the 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. Qg 5 
 
 consideration of his creditors a proposal for a composition (or Torm No. 22 
 extension of time for payment of his debts). 
 
 Particulars of the Debtor's proposal and a -summary of his 
 statement of affairs are enclosed herewith. 
 
 A general meeting of the creditors of the debtor will be 
 
 held at on the 
 
 day of 19- • • -at the hour of 
 
 o'clock in the noon. 
 
 The creditors qualified to vote at such meeting may, by 
 resolution passed by a majority in number thereof holding two- 
 thirds in amount of the proved debts, accept the proposal made 
 by the debtor either .as made or as altered or modified at the 
 request of the meeting. If so accepted and if approved by the 
 Court such proposal shall be binding on all the creditors. 
 
 Proof of debts, proxies and voting letters intended to be 
 used at the meeting must be lodged with me prior thereto. 
 
 ■Creditors who prove their debts and whose proofs are 
 admitted and who do not vote on the debtor's proposal shall be 
 reckoned as voting against it. 
 
 Date at this day of 
 
 19.... 
 
 Trustee. 
 Notes :— 
 
 1. Creditors who have proved may vote for or against the debtor's 
 proposal by means of a voting letter. 
 
 2. A form of proof of debt, proxy and voting letter are sent here- 
 with. 
 
 Cross References: S. 13. ER. 98-106. PP. 22-31. E.P. 20. 
 
 No. 22. 
 
 Voting Letter. 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 In the Estate of authorized 
 
 assignor (or bankrupt) . 
 
 •*> • 
 
 of 
 
 a creditor in the above matter for the sum of 
 
 hereby request the authorized trustee of the said estate to record 
 
 my vote (a) the acceptance of ( a ) insert 
 
 the proposal as set forth in the report of the authorized trustee here * the n 
 hereto annexed or as altered or modified at the request of the J^the w'ord 
 meeting. "against" 
 
 Dated this. dav of asthecase 
 
 19.... 
 
 may be. 
 
 (Signature of Witness.) (Signature of Creditor.) 
 
 Cross References: S. 13. EE. 98-106. PP. 21, 23-31. 
 
 E.P. 81. 
 
686 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Forms Nos. No. 23. 
 
 23,24 
 
 Proposal for a Composition. 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 In the matter of 
 
 of 
 
 in the Province of 
 
 I, • . ' , the above 
 
 named debtor, hereby submit the following proposal for com- 
 position in satisfaction of my debts : — 
 
 1. That payment in priority to all other of my debts of all 
 debts directed to be so paid in the distribution of the property 
 of a bankrupt (or authorized assignor) shall 'be provided for as 
 follows : — 
 
 (Set out terms of proposal so far as relate to preferential 
 claims.) 
 
 2. That provision for payment of all the proper costs, 
 charges and expenses of and incidental to the proceedings, and 
 all fees and percentages payable to the trustee shall be made in 
 the following manner : — 
 
 (Set out proposal for provisions for fefis, charges,, costs, etc.) 
 
 3. That the following composition shall be paid as herein- 
 after mentioned- on all provable debts: — 
 
 (Set out terms of composition.) 
 
 4. That the payment of the composition be secured in the 
 following manner: — 
 
 (Set out full names and addresses of sureties (if any) and 
 complete particulars of all securities intended to be given.) 
 
 Dated at this 
 
 day of A.D. 19. . . 
 
 (Signed.) 
 
 Cross References : S. 13. EE. 98-106. FF. 21, 22, 24-31. 
 E.F. 79. 
 
 No. 24. 
 
 Proposal for an Extension of Time or Scheme. 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 In the matter of 
 
 of , in the Province of 
 
 I, the ahove named debtor, hereby submit the following pro- 
 posal for an extension of time from my creditors for payment of 
 my debts, (or for a scheme of arrangement of my affairs in satis- 
 faction of my debts.) 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 687 
 
 1. That Form No. 25 
 
 (Set out terms of extension or scheme.) 
 
 2. That payment in priority to all other of my debts of all 
 debts directed to be so paid 'in the distribution of the property 
 of a bankrupt (or authorized assignor) is provided for as 
 follows :— 
 
 (Set out or indicate oy reference to the extension or scheme 
 low it is proposed to satisfy preferential claims.) 
 
 3. That provision for payment of all the proper costs, 
 charges, and expenses of and incidental to the proceedings, and 
 all fees and percentages payable to the trustee is provided for as 
 follows :— 
 
 (Set out or indicate oy reference to the scheme how it is pro- 
 posed to provide for fees, costs, charges, etc.) 
 
 4. That the payment of the terms of the said .extension (or 
 scheme) is to be secured in the following manner. - 
 
 (Set out full names and addresses of sureties and give par- 
 ticulars of all securities.) 
 
 Dated at this 
 
 day of A.D. 19 
 
 (Signed.) 
 
 Cross References: S. 13. EE. 98-1(56. FF. 21-23, 25-31. 
 E.E. 80. 
 
 No. 25. 
 
 Resolution Accepting Composition. 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 In the matter of of the 
 
 01 in the Province of 
 
 Minutes of resolution come to and proceedings had at a 
 
 meeting of creditors held at in the 
 
 Province of this) day of 
 
 19.... 
 
 Chairman. 
 
 Resolved as follows: — (a) (a) Insert 
 
 "unanimous- 
 
 That the debtor's proposal for a composition as set forth in tS^resolu- 
 the annexed paper writing marked " A " be accepted. tion is so 
 
 carried. 
 
 Chairman. ? 
 
688 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Porm No. 86 
 
 Assenting Creditors' 
 Signatures 
 
 Amouii 
 
 of 
 
 Proof 
 
 Number 
 
 Dissenting 
 Creditors 
 Signatures 
 
 
 Number 
 
 Amount 
 
 of 
 
 Proof 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Note : When a resolution is carried unanimously the creditors need 
 not sign, but when a division is taken all creditors and holders of 
 proxies voting should sign. Tie signatures must be attached at the 
 meeting. Resolutions should be put separately. 
 
 Cross References: 
 
 E.F.82. 
 
 S. 13. EE. 98-106. FF. 21-24, 26-31. 
 
 (a) Insert 
 "unanimous- 
 ly" where 
 the resolu- 
 tion is so 
 carried. 
 
 Wo. 26. 
 
 Resolution Accepting Extension or Scheme of Arrangement. 
 
 THE BANKEUPTCY ACT. 
 
 In the matter of of the 
 
 of. in the Province of. 
 
 Minutes of resolution come to and proceedings had at the 
 
 first meeting of creditors held at 
 
 in the Province of this day of 
 
 19.... 
 
 Chairman. 
 Eesolved as follows: — : (a) 
 
 That the debtor's proposal for an extension of time {or 
 scheme of arrangement) as set forth in the paper -writing hereto 
 annexed and marked with the letter " A " be accepted. 
 
 Chairman. 
 
 Number 
 
 Assenting Creditors' 
 Signatures 
 
 Amount 
 
 of 
 
 Proof 
 
 Number 
 
 Dissenting 
 Creditors' 
 Signatures 
 
 Amount 
 
 of 
 Proof 
 
 Note: When a resolution is carried unanimously the creditors need 
 not sign, but when a division is taken all creditors and holders of 
 proxies voting should sign. The signatures must be attached at the 
 meeting. Resolutions should be put separately. 
 
 Cross References: S. 13. EE. 98-106. FF. 21-25, 27-31. 
 E.F. 83. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 689 
 
 No. 27. Forms Nos. 
 
 27 to 29 
 
 Order Appointing Day for Hearing. 
 
 {Title.) 
 
 Upon the application of the Trustee 
 
 it is ordered that the application for the approval 
 
 by the Court of the composition (or extension or scheme) in this 
 
 matter shall be heard "before me at my Chambers in the 
 
 of in the of on the 
 
 clay of ".'. . . .19. . . ., at the hour of o'clock in 
 
 the... noon. 
 
 ' Dated this day of 19. . . 
 
 Cross References: S. 13. RE. 98-106. IT. 21-26, 28-31. 
 B.F. 85. 
 
 No. 28. 
 
 Notice to Creditors of Application to Court to Approve Com- 
 position, Extension or Scheme. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 -Take notice that application will be made to 
 
 in Chambers at on the 
 
 day of 19. . ., at o'clock in the. . . .noon, 
 
 to approve the composition (or extension or scheme of arrange- 
 ment) as proposed by the debtor and duly accepted by the 
 
 statutory majority of creditors at a meeting held on the 
 
 day of 19.... 
 
 Dated this day of 19 
 
 Authorized Trustee. 
 
 Cross Relerences : S. 13. ER. 98-106. IP. 21-27, 29-31. 
 E.P. 87, 
 
 No. 29. 
 
 Report of Authorized Trustee on Proposal for Composition, 
 Extension or Scheme. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 The authorized trustee of the above estate hereby reports: — 
 That the debtor has lodged with him a proposal for a com- 
 position (extension or scheme) to he submitted to the creditors, 
 of which the following is a copy : — 
 
 {here set out fully the terms of proposal.) 
 b.c. — 44 
 
690 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Forms Nos. That the liabilities, as shown by the debtor's statement of 
 
 30,31 affairs, amount to the sum of $ '.and the assets are 
 
 estimated by the debtor at the sum of $ after payment 
 
 of preferential debts. 
 
 That the value of the assets is (fairly estimated by the 
 debtor) (or, as the case may be). 
 
 That the terms of the debtor's proposal (set out particulars 
 of proposal and observations on the proposals and the debtor's 
 conduct). 
 
 Dated this day of 19 . . . 
 
 Authorized Trustee 
 Address. 
 
 Cross References: S. 13. RE. 98-106. FF. 21-28, 30, 31. 
 E.F. 81. 
 
 No. 30. 
 
 Order Approving Composition or Scheme. 
 (Title.) 
 On the application of the authorized trustee. 
 
 .and on reading the report of the authorized trustee 
 
 filed on the day of 19 .... , and 
 
 hearing and the Court being 
 
 satisfied that the required majority of creditors under the said 
 Act have duly accepted the composition (or extension or scheme) 
 in the terms contained in the paper writing marked "A" 
 annexed hereto and being satisfied that the said terms are 
 reasonable and calculated to benefit, the general body of creditors 
 and that no facts have been proved which would justify the 
 Court in withholding its approval, the said composition (or 
 extension or scheme) is hereby approved. 
 
 Dated this day of 19 . . . 
 
 Cross References: S. 13. ER. 98-106. ' FF. 21-29, 31. 
 E.F. 90. 
 
 No. 31. 
 
 Order Refusing to Approve Composition, Extension or Scheme. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 On the application of the authorized trustee 
 
 and on reading the report of the 
 
 authorized trustee filed on the day of 
 
 19 , and hearing , and the 
 
 Court being satisfied that the required majority of creditors 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. g 91 
 
 under the said Act have duly accepted the composition (or Forms Nos. 
 extension or scheme in the terms contained in the paper writing 32 » 33 _ 
 marked "A" annexed thereto), and being satisfied that the said 
 terms are not reasonable or calculated to benefit the general 
 body of creditors (or being satisfied that the case is 
 
 one in which the Court would be required, if the debtor was 
 adjudged bankrupt, to refuse his discharge) or (facts having 
 been proved which would wader the Act justify the Court in 
 refusing, qualifying or suspending the debtor's discharge.) 
 
 The Court doth refuse to approve the said composition (or 
 extension or scheme.) 
 
 Dated tins day of 19 . . . 
 
 Cross References: S. 13. KE. 98-106. PF. 21-30. E.F. 90. 
 
 No. 32. 
 
 (a) Notice to Creditors of Meeting to Appoint new Trustee, (a) under 
 
 sec. 14(9>. 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 In the matter of the Estate 
 of 
 
 Bankrupt, (or authorized assignor). 
 
 Take Xotice that the undersigned authorized trustee having 
 been unable (or having failed) to give the security required by 
 section 14(8) of the said Act, a meeting of creditors will be held 
 at on the 
 
 day of 19 at 
 
 o'clock in the noon for the purpose of appointing a new 
 
 authorized trustee. 
 
 Dated at this day of 
 
 19 
 
 Authorized Trustee. 
 
 Cross References: SS. 14(9) (10), 15. FF. 33-36. 
 
 No. 33. 
 
 (a) Resolution to Appoint or Substitute Another Authorized 
 Trustee. 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 In the Matter of the Estate of 
 
 of the of • .in the 
 
 Province of 
 
 Bankrupt, 
 (or authorized assignor). 
 
69£ 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Form N<r. 34 Minutes of Besolution come to and proceedings had at a meet- 
 
 r— ing of creditors held at in the of 
 
 this i day of 
 
 19..,, 
 
 Chairman 
 (a) Besolved as follows 
 
 That (b) of the of 
 
 an authorized trustee, be henceforth 
 
 appointed (or substituted) as the authorized trustee in the 
 
 above estate for and in the place of 
 
 the authorized trustee named in the receiving order (or to 
 whom the authorized assignment was made). 
 
 •Chairman. 
 
 (a)- Insert 
 "unanimous- 
 ly" where 
 the resolu- 
 tion is so 
 carried. 
 
 (b) Insert 
 name of new 
 
 trustee. 
 
 (a) Under 
 sec. 15 (3). 
 
 Number 
 
 Assenting Creditors' 
 Signatures 
 
 Amount 
 
 of. 
 
 Proof 
 
 Number 
 
 Dissenting 
 Creditors' 
 Signatures 
 
 Amount < 
 
 of 
 Pronf 
 
 Note : When a resolution is carried unanimously the creditors need 
 not sign, but when a division is taken all creditors and holders of 
 proxies voting should sign. The signatures must be attached at the 
 meeting. Resolutions should be put separately. 
 
 Cross References: SS. 14(10), 15. PP. 32, 34-36. 
 
 No. 34. 
 
 (a) Notice of New or Substituted Trustee. 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 In the Matter of the Estate of . ' 
 
 of the of in the 
 
 Province of . 
 
 Bankrupt, 
 (or Authorized Assignor). 
 Take Notice that the undersigned authorized trustee has 
 been appointed (or substituted) as the authorized trustee of the 
 above estate for and in the place of 
 
 the authorized trustee 
 named in the receiving order (or to whom the authorized assign- 
 ment was made) . 
 
 Dated at : this 
 
 clay of 19- 
 
 Authorized Trustee. 
 
 Cross References! S. 15. PP. 32, 33, 35, 36. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 693 
 
 No. 35. Forms Nos. 
 
 35, 36 
 
 (■a) Affidavit of New or Substituted Trustee. — - — 
 
 w * ' ' (a) Under 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act. sec. 15 (3) . 
 
 In the Matter of the Estate of 
 
 of the of 
 
 in the Province of 
 
 Bankrupt, 
 (or Authorized Trustee). 
 
 I, (a) " ." (a) Name 
 
 of the. ... ,. of • . . of new 
 
 in the Province of Authorized Trustee, trustee - 
 
 make oath and say : — 
 
 1. That pursuant to the provisions of section 14(9) of the 
 -said Act I have been appointed the authorized trustee of the 
 
 above estate in place of <. ,.,... 
 
 the authorized trustee named 
 
 in the receiving order (or to whom the authorized assignment 
 was made) or 
 
 (1) That pursuant to the provisions of section 15 (1) (or 
 15 (2)) of the said Act I have been substituted as the autho- 
 rized trustee of "the above' estate for the 
 
 authorized trustee named -in the receiving order (or to whom 
 the authorized assignment was made) . 
 
 2. That hereto annexed and marked with the letter " A " is 
 a true copy of the resolution of the creditors so appointing (or 
 substituting) me trustee, which resolution was passed on the 
 day of 19.... 
 
 Sworn, etc. 
 
 Cross References: SS. 14(9) (10), 15. FF. 32-34, 36. 
 
 No. 36. 
 
 Bond to Registrar under Section H (8). 
 (Title.) 
 
 Know all Men by these Presents that we (name and address 
 of authorized trustee) and (name and description of guarantor) 
 
 are jointly and severally held and firmly bound to 
 
 (name of Registrar), Eegistrar in Bankruptcy of the Court 
 
 ; (name Court) and to his successor or successors 
 
 in office in the sum of $ to be paid to the said 
 
 Registrar or to his successor or successors in office, for which 
 payment well and truly to be made we bind ourselves and each 
 and every of us, our and each of our heirs, executors, administra- 
 tors and successors jointly and severally firmly by these presents. 
 
 Sealed with our seal and dated this day of 
 
 19... 
 
694 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Forms Wos. Whereas the said {name of authorised trustee) is 
 
 37 » 38 the authorized trustee of the estate of of 
 
 under and by virtue of a receiving order bearing /the date, the 
 
 day of 19 . . . {or under and by 
 
 ' virtue of a certain authorized assignment bearing date the. ..-„-, . 
 day of.. • 19...); 
 
 And Whereas the estimated value of the assets of the said 
 debtor as shown by his statement of affairs filed in this Court is 
 the sum of .... t ; 
 
 Now Therefore the condition of this obligation is such that 
 if the above bounden authorized trustee shall duly account and 
 pay over and transfer all moneys and properties received or to 
 be received by him as such authorized trustee in respect of the 
 estate of said debtor then this obligation shall be void, otherwise 
 it shall remain in full force. 
 
 Cross References: SS. 14(8) (9) (10). PP. 32-35. 
 
 No. 37. 
 
 Demand by Trustee on Contributory under Sec. 36 {6). 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 In the matter of the estate of (A. B. Company) 
 
 bankrupt {or authorized assignor). 
 It appears from the records of ........ t ...... . .the above 
 
 named corporation that you are a shareholder of such corpora- 
 tion and that the amount unpaid on your shares of the capital 
 
 of said corporation is $ - 
 
 I accordingly demand that you pay me within thirty days 
 
 from and after the date of the service of this demand on you the 
 
 (a) If amount sum of $ , being part of (a) your liability in respect 
 
 ?s e total ded of your said shares - 
 
 amount due Dated at . . . this day of 19 . . . 
 
 strike out - 
 
 woi s par Authorized Trustee. 
 
 To 
 
 Contributory. 
 
 Cross References: S. 36(6). RR. 122-130. PP. 38-40. 
 
 No. 38. 
 
 Application of Trustee for Judgment against Contributories of 
 Insolvent Corporation. 
 
 {Title.) 
 
 The trustee reports to the Court: — 
 
 That a receiving order was made against the above named 
 debtor on the day of , 19. . ., {or 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 695 
 
 that the above named debtor made an authorized assignment to Form No. 89 
 the trustee on the day of 19 . . . ) . 
 
 That the debtor is a corporation and that the following 
 persons (among others) appear to be contributories undeT the 
 Bankruptcy Act, namely— 
 
 (Here give names and addresses of contributories against 
 whom judgment is asked) . 
 
 That the trustee has demanded payment from each of the 
 said contributories of the amount set opposite each of their 
 respective names, namely — 
 
 Name of Contributory. Amount Demanded. 
 
 That the amounts so demanded are for the purpose of pay- 
 ing the liabilities of the debtor. 
 
 That none of the said contributories have paid the amounts 
 demanded, although more than thirty days have elapsed since 
 each of said contributories have been served with the demand 
 and evidence of such service is filed on this application. 
 
 That the following contributories have not disputed the said 
 demand or any part thereof, namely — 
 
 That the following contributories have disputed the said 
 demand, namely — 
 
 and a true copy of each notice of dispute given to the trustee is 
 filed on this application. 
 
 The verified statement of affairs of the debtor, the trustee's 
 estimate of the realizable value of the property of the debtor, 
 and a list of proved or provable claims against the estate of the 
 debtor so far as can be ascertained, are filed on this application. 
 
 The trustee accordingly, in pursuance of the said Act makes 
 application to the Court for judgment against each of said 
 contributories for the amount demanded from each thereof and 
 the costs of this application or for such other order as the Court 
 may deem advisable or expedient. 
 
 Dated this day of 19. ... 
 
 Authorized Trustee. 
 Cross References: S. 36. BE. 122-130. FF. 37, 39-40. 
 
 No. 30. 
 
 Application of Contributory to Adjust Rights of Contributories. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 I, L. M. of do apply to this Court under 
 
 the provisions of Section 36(11) of The Bankruptcy Act to 
 adjust the rights of the contributories of the above named debtor 
 
696 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Form No. 40 among themselves on the grounds set forth in the annexed 
 affidavit. 
 
 Dated this .day of 19. . . 
 
 L. M. 
 
 * 
 
 Cross References: S. 36. EE. 122-130. FF. 37-38, 40. 
 
 No. 40. 
 
 Affidavit in Support of Application to Adjust Rights of Con- 
 tributories. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 I, L.'M., of the of 
 
 in the Province of make oath and say : — 
 
 1. That a receiving order was made against the above named 
 
 debtor on the day of 
 
 A.D. 19. . . ., (or that the above named debtor made an autho- 
 rized assignment to an authorized trustee 
 
 on the day of 19 . . . ) . 
 
 2. That the debtor is a corporation and that I am one of the 
 contributories and pursuant to a demand made upon me by the 
 
 said authorized trustee, I did pay him on the day of 
 
 . .... 19 ... , the sum of (or the autho- 
 rized trustee has made application to this Court for judgment 
 against me for $ ) . 
 
 3. Set out in the Schedule hereto annexed marked " Sche- 
 dule A " is a list of all the contributories of the said debtor with 
 their addresses and the estimated amounts for which they are 
 liable as contributories set opposite each respective name, so far 
 as I have been able to ascertain the same. 
 
 4. That set out in the Schedule hereto annexed and marked 
 "Schedule B " is a list of all the contributories, from whom I 
 claim contribution. 
 
 5. That my grounds for claiming such contribution are as 
 follows (here set out grounds and any pertinent facts.) 
 
 Sworn before me at the \ 
 of 
 in the Province of 
 
 this ... f 
 
 day of I 
 
 A.TD. 19 ' 
 
 A Commissioner in B. E., etc. 
 or A Notary Public in and for. . . 
 
 Cross References : S. 36. EE. 122-130. FF. 37-39. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 697 
 
 No. 41. Forms Nos. 
 
 41, 42 
 
 yotiee to Persons Claiming to be Creditors of Intention to 
 declare final dividend and requiring them to establish 
 claim. 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 In the matter of the estate of 
 
 of. 
 
 Take notice that a final dividend is intended to be declared 
 in the above matter, and that if you do not establish your claim 
 
 to the satisfaction of the Court on or before the 
 
 day of 19. . ., or such later day as the Court may 
 
 fix, I shall proceed to make a final dividend without regard to 
 such claim. 
 
 Dated this day of 19. . . 
 
 Authorized Trustee. 
 To X. Y. 
 
 Address. 
 
 Cross References: S. 37(6). E.F. 173. 
 
 No. 42. 
 
 Application of Trustee for his Discharge. 
 (Title.) 
 
 The undersigned authorized trustee hereby applies to the 
 Court for an order fully (or partially) discharging him from 
 the performance of any further duties and obligations with 
 respect to the above estate and for a release of the special security 
 provided by the undersigned. 
 
 Attached hereto and marked with the letter " A " is a com- 
 plete and itemized statement of all moneys realized by the 
 undersigned from or out of the property of the bankrupt or 
 assignor and of all moneys disbursed including expenses incurred 
 and remuneration received or claimed by the undersigned. 
 
 That all of the property of the bankrupt or assignor has 
 been sold or realized upon by the undersigned, with the excep- 
 tion of the following : — 
 
 (Here give full particulars, description and value of all 
 property not sold or realized upon and reasons why not 
 sold.) 
 
 That there are no disputes, actions or proceedings unsettled 
 or pending between the authorized trustee and the debtor or any 
 
698 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Forms Nos. creditor or creditors of the estate or any other persons whatsoever 
 43,44 except the following — 
 
 (Here give particulars, if any.) 
 
 Dated this -. . . . day of . 19 . . . 
 
 Authorized Trustee. 
 
 Cross References: S. 41. ER 107-110. FF. 43, 44. 
 
 No. 43. 
 
 Affidavit Verifying Application of Trustee for his Discharge. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 I, the authorized 
 
 trustee named in the application hereto annexed make oath and 
 say:— 
 
 That the several statements in or attached to the said appli- 
 cation are within my own knowledge true. 
 Swous at, etc. 
 
 CD. 
 
 Cross References: SS. 41, 79. ER. 26-33, 107-110. FF. 
 
 42, 44. 
 
 No. 44. 
 
 Order Discharging Authorized Trustee. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 ' Upon the Application of -.. - 
 
 authorized trustee of the estate of 
 
 bankrupt (or authorized assignor), and upon hearing the autho- 
 rized trustee and CD., E.F., etc. (as the case may oe). 
 
 It is Oedeeed that the said authorized trustee he and he is 
 hereby fully discharged from the performance of any further 
 duties and obligations with respect to the said estate. 
 
 (or It is Oedered that the authorized trustee be partially 
 discharged from the performance of any further duties and 
 obligations with respect to the said estate excepting as to any 
 property which the trustee has. not sold or realized upon). 
 
 It is Further Ordered that the special security provided 
 by the authorized trustee be and the same is hereby released. 
 
 Dated this, day of 19. . . 
 
 Cross References: S. 41. RE. 107-110. FF. 42, 43. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. gnn 
 
 ^°- 45. Forms Nos. 
 
 General Proxy. 45 10 47 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 In the Estate of 
 
 I, (or We) ■ of 
 
 the of , a creditor, 
 
 hereby appoint of the 
 
 of to be my (or our) general proxy in the 
 
 above matter (excepting only as to the receipt of dividends). 
 
 Dated at this 
 
 day of A.D. .19 
 
 (Signed) 
 Signature of witness 
 Address 
 
 Cross References: SS. 42(13) (19), 13(4). F. 46. E.F. 64. 
 
 No. 46. 
 
 Special Proxy. 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 In the matter of the Estate of 
 
 I,. . : . .'! of the 
 
 of , a creditor, hereby appoint 
 
 of the of . 
 
 as my proxy at the meeting of creditors 
 
 to be held on the day of 19 ... , or 
 
 any adjournment thereof, to vote. 
 
 Dated at this day of 
 
 A.D. 19. 
 
 (Signed) 
 Signature of witness. 
 
 Cross References: S. 42(13) (19), 13(4), E. 45. E. P. 65. 
 
 No. 47. 
 
 Proof of Debt. 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 In the matter of the estate of 
 
 of 
 
 I, ." of the 
 
 01 ' in the Province of 
 
 do solemnly declare and say : — 
 
 1. That I am the of the under- 
 mentioned creditor and have knowledge of all circumstances 
 connected with the debt hereinafter referred to. 
 
700 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Form No. 48 
 
 (a) The 
 account 
 attached 
 must show 
 the consid- 
 eration such 
 as "goods 
 sold and 
 delivered" or 
 "moneys 
 lent." 
 
 (b) Here 
 state 
 
 particulars 
 of all 
 securities 
 held and 
 where the 
 securities 
 
 are on the 
 property of 
 the debtor 
 assess the 
 yalue of 
 each 
 
 thereof — 
 and give 
 dates when 
 given. 
 
 2. That the said, ■ . , was at the date of 
 
 the authorized assignment (or receiving order) namely: the 
 
 day of 19 ... , and still is 
 
 justly and truly indebted to , in the 
 
 sum of as shown by the . account hereto 
 
 annexed and marked " A." 
 
 (a) 
 
 3. That the said, has not, nor has 
 
 any person by his order to my knowledge or belief for his use, 
 had or received any manner of satisfaction or security, whatso- 
 ever save and except the following: — ■ >, 
 
 (b) 
 And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believ- 
 ing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and 
 effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evi- 
 dence Act. . . 
 
 Declared before me at the ] 
 
 of •••--.[ 
 
 in the Province of ... . 
 
 this day of 
 
 , A.D. 19. 
 
 A 'Commissioner in B. E. ; etc., or A Notary 
 Public in and for " 
 
 Cross References: SS. 2(n), 13(3) (4) (5), 44-50, 53. ER. 
 115,116. P. 48; cf. F. 2. E.F. 60. 
 
 r 
 
 No. 48. 
 
 Proof of Debt of Workmen or Others. 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 In the Estate of 
 
 the Debtor. 
 
 I, of the . . 
 
 of 
 
 Do Solemnly Declare and sat : — 
 
 1. That I was the foreman (or book-keeper or as the case 
 may be) of the above, named debtor at the date of the receiving 
 order (or at the date of the authorized assignment) namely — 
 
 the day of 19 . . . and I have 
 
 knowledge of the facts and matters hereinafter referred to. 
 
 2. That the said debtor was at the said date and still is justly 
 and truly indebted to the several persons whose names, addresses 
 and descriptions appear in the schedule endorsed hereon in the 
 sums severally set against their names in the sixth column of 
 such schedule for wages due to them respectively as workmen or 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT: 
 
 701 
 
 employees in the employ of the said debtor in respect of services Form Ho. 49 
 
 rendered by them respectively to the debtor during such period 
 
 before the date of the receiving order (or authorized assignment) 
 
 as are set out against their respective names in the fifth column 
 
 of such schedule for which said sums, or any part thereof, I say 
 
 that they have not, nor has any of them, had or received any 
 
 manner of satisfaction or security whatsoever. 
 
 And I Make this Solemn- Declabation conscientiously 
 - believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force 
 and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada 
 Evidence Act. • 
 
 Dbclaeed before me at the. . . : 
 
 of in the Province of . . . .■ 
 
 this day of :.. A.D. 19... 
 
 A Commissioner in B. E., etc. 
 
 SCHEDULE. 
 
 1 
 
 No. 
 
 2 
 
 Full name of - 
 workman 
 
 3 
 Address 
 
 4 
 Description 
 
 5 
 
 Period 
 
 over 
 
 which 
 
 waeres due 
 
 6 
 
 Amount 
 due 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cross References: SS. 2(n), 13(3) (4) (5) ; 44-50, 53. RE. 
 115,116. F. 47; c/. P. 2. E.P. 62. 
 
 No. 49. 
 
 Xotice of Election to retain Leasehold Property under 
 Section 52. 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 In the Estate of of 
 
 Take notice that I hereby elect to retain the premises (here 
 describe premises) occupied by the above named bankrupt (or 
 
 authorized assignor) under a certain lease dated 
 
 • ■ ■, for the unexpired term of such lea.se ( or 
 
 for the following period 
 
 of the unexpired term of said lease). 
 
702 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Forms Nos. Dated at this . 
 
 50 ' 51 day of 19 . . 
 
 Authorized Trustee. 
 To E. Z., Landlord. 
 
 Cross References: S. 53 P. 50. 
 
 No. 50. 
 
 Notice of Disclaimer of Lease under Section 52. 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 In the Estate of of the 
 
 of. 
 
 Take notice that I hereby disclaim the lease dated 
 
 whereby the following premises, namely — 
 
 {here describe premises) were let to ;at a rent of 
 
 Dated at! .this. 
 
 day of 19 
 
 To E. Z., Landlord. 
 
 Cross References: S. 52. F. 49. 
 
 Authorized Trustee. 
 
 No. 51. 
 
 Notice of Disallowance of Claim. 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 In the Estate of , 
 
 Take notice, that, as trustee of the above estate, I have this 
 clay disallowed your claim against such estate (a) (to the extent 
 of $ ) on the following grounds : — 
 (a) If proof And further take notice that if you are dissatisfied with my 
 wholly decision in respect of your proof, you may apply to the Court to 
 
 strike out. reverse or vary the same, but, subject to the power of the Court 
 to extend the time, no application to revise or vary my decision 
 in disallowing your proof will be entertained after the expira- 
 tion of thirty days from this date. 
 
 Dated at the of 
 
 this day of A.D. 19. . . 
 
 Authorized Trustee. 
 Cross References: S. 53. KB. 117-118. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 
 
 703 
 
 Uj= 
 
 
 
 
 « s 
 
 
 
 
 ■s-s 
 
 
 
 
 3 b 
 
 
 
 
 «-r -- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — 09 
 
 
 
 
 — fr- 
 
 
 
 
 "■a 
 
 
 
 
 spfci 
 
 
 
 
 «< 
 
 
 
 
 So 
 
 
 
 
 s« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * a 
 
 
 
 
 — 03 
 
 
 
 
 'O -<-» 
 
 
 
 
 .gBQ 
 
 
 
 
 O h 
 
 
 
 ♦a 
 
 3? 
 
 
 
 «■ 
 
 ej k» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •ae 
 
 S3 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 - OJ -w 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 ■B'Z 
 
 
 
 ft; 
 
 to oa 
 ,1, C 
 
 
 
 
 oj p 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 t- o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 02 
 « 
 
 
 do 
 
 J5 c 
 
 )-l 
 
 
 os 
 
 «HT3 
 
 <* 
 
 
 ■< 
 
 O V 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 ■a 
 
 •sS 
 
 8' 
 
 1" 
 
 60 <U 
 
 i fe 
 
 &< 
 
 o 
 
 t3J5 
 
 b 
 
 
 B 5: 
 
 o 
 
 & 
 
 *i 
 
 e5 
 
 * g 
 
 
 5 
 ^ 
 
 2 • 
 
 £ 
 
 <i 
 
 , — , 
 
 ^^a 
 
 8 
 
 B 
 
 a 
 
 BO jo 
 
 S 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 — V 
 
 
 
 
 +* b 
 
 H 
 
 B 
 
 «q 
 
 .. w 
 
 <J 
 
 
 
 >9 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 Oi 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 ■■a 
 
 
 CO 'Z, 
 
 GO GQ 
 
 <J » 
 
 X! 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 .9 o 
 
 trt -U aj+J -S 
 
 Oj "Z 4- 
 >^ 03 0) 
 
 ^=J 
 
 .SB 
 
 4-a HI" 
 
 cats c 
 
 T3 -u _, 
 
 "S » 
 
 -t-» '_■ 
 B u1& 
 
 Bag 
 a„ o 
 
 S 
 
 .o5g 
 
 
 a &3 
 
 C 
 
 O Oj 
 
 OK 
 
 a§9.Se3 s ga 
 If. Sl-a'&sl 
 
 ■C ai<w M^a-i 
 
 u^'3 
 
 a o a 
 ■ice 
 goo 
 
 3g 
 
 '£ Q II 
 
 8 o .' 
 
 " r2- 
 CO r 
 
 C5 — 
 ti CO 
 
 P5B 
 
 ~ " o 
 
 a»,g 
 
 '4= - ^ 
 
 •"W3 
 
 ■a {S '3 
 
 S? ^ oj 
 
 B«^o 
 S ■"« 
 
 «.! 
 .S »s5 
 
 OJ'rH ej 
 ^^ (V 0J 
 
 o ? *» 
 
 18« 
 
 - VI- 
 rn'ci 
 
 °9§ 
 ■o" '3 
 
 %^« 
 
 flSS 
 
 Oft p 
 
 -. ft 
 
 «K~ 
 
 ■ — 5- 
 
 o VI 
 
 5 ="a 
 
 j 03^ 
 > a'fe 
 
 < 0J s4S 
 
 o o 
 
 T3 QJ 
 
 B a— 
 
 p a; t, 
 
 cj j. o -y 
 
 *, CD "^^ 
 
 EC S -rH 
 
 T3 i, <5'l-3 X 
 
 1 aS 1 
 
 •_- B 
 ■ B^, 
 » aj , 
 
 * e* fl ' 
 
 * O flo 
 
 o „, m 
 ■« 5° - 
 
 Ji.5<SS ^ = 
 
 v -'i"i 
 
 ,P. c 
 
 oj 
 
 ft 
 
 ^ oj 
 ' O _, ™ 
 
 B .SH 
 
 ■ ^ S 
 
 bn.. 
 
 T3 h o ? 
 
 |&. En a 
 
 . a^ B - 
 t- o 
 
 
 ! oi2 r 
 
 OT3 
 4-1 
 
 2 rt 
 
 
 
 
 S3- 
 
 V. 
 
704 
 Form No. 52 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 " A." 
 
 Unsecured Creditors. 
 
 (The names to be arranged in alphabetical order and num- 
 bered consecutively). 
 
 No. 
 
 Name 
 
 Address 
 
 Amount of 
 Claim 
 
 - ' 
 
 
 
 
 Signature 
 
 Dated 
 
 " B." 
 
 Secured Creditors. 
 
 19 
 
 No. 
 
 Name 
 
 of 
 
 Creditor 
 
 Address 
 
 Amount 
 
 of 
 
 Debt, 
 
 Particulars 
 
 of 
 
 Security 
 
 When 
 Given 
 
 Estimated 
 Value of 
 Security- 
 
 Balance 
 
 of Debt 
 
 Unsecured 
 
 Signature 
 
 Dated 
 
 " C." 
 
 19 
 
 Liabilities on Bills or Notes endorsed or given for accommodor 
 
 Hon. 
 
 No. 
 
 Name of 
 
 Acceptor or 
 
 Maker 
 
 Address 
 
 Date 
 when 
 Due 
 
 Holder's 
 
 Name and 
 
 Address 
 
 Amount 
 
 expected t<> 
 
 rank against 
 
 estate for 
 
 dividend 
 
 Signature 
 
 Dated 
 
 19 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 " D.'" 
 Preferential Creditors for Wages, Rent, etc. 
 
 705 
 Form No. 52 
 
 No. 
 
 Name 
 
 of 
 
 Creditor 
 
 Address 
 and 
 
 Occupa- 
 tion 
 
 Nature 
 of 
 
 Period 
 
 during 
 
 which Claim 
 
 Claim accrued due 
 
 \mount Amount 
 
 of payable 
 
 Claim in full 
 
 Difference 
 ranking 
 
 for 
 Dividends 
 
 Signature 
 
 Dated 
 
 19 
 
 " E." 
 
 Contingent or Other Liabilities. 
 
 (Pull particulars of all liabilities not otherwise scheduled to 
 be given here.) 
 
 No. 
 
 Name of 
 
 creditor or 
 
 claimant 
 
 Address 
 
 and 
 
 occupation 
 
 Amount of 
 
 liability or 
 
 claim 
 
 Amount 
 
 expected to 
 
 rank for 
 
 dividend 
 
 I. 
 liability incurred . G f 
 
 ; ! liabil ty 
 
 Month Year I 
 
 Signature 
 
 Dated 
 
 19 
 
 Belts due to the Estate, including bill of exchange, promissory 
 notes, lien notes and chattel mortgages. 
 
 No. 
 
 Name of Debtor 
 
 P. 0. Address 
 
 Occupation 
 
 Good 
 
 Amount of Debt. 
 
 
 Doubtful 
 
 Bad 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Signature 
 Dated 
 
 B.C.- 
 
70G 
 
 Forms Nos. 
 53,54 
 
 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 G.' 
 
 Real Estate or Immovable Property owned by Debtor. 
 
 Description 
 of Property 
 
 In whose 
 lNaii.es does 
 Title stand 
 
 Total 
 Value 
 
 Particulars of 
 
 Mortgages, Hypothecs or 
 
 other Encumbrances 
 
 Equity 
 or 
 
 
 Name 
 
 Addres 
 
 Amount 
 
 Surplus 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 Signature 
 
 Dated 19 
 
 Cross References: S. 54. B. 97. B.F. 34. 
 
 No. S3. 
 
 Notice to Debtor of Meeting of Creditors. 
 
 Ee (James Brown) debtor. 
 
 Take notice that a meeting of your creditors will be held 
 
 at on the 
 
 day of 19 . . ., at the hour of 
 
 o'clock in the noon at " 
 
 and that you are required to attend thereat 
 
 and submit to such examination and give such information as 
 the meeting may require. 
 
 And further take notice that if you fail to comply with the 
 requirements of this notice you will be guilty of contempt of 
 Court and may be punished accordingly. 
 
 Dated at this 
 
 day of 19.... 
 
 Authorized Trustee. 
 
 To 
 
 The above named debtor. 
 
 Cross References : SS. 54, 56. E. 113. F. 53. 
 
 No. 54. 
 
 Affidavit of Person in support of Order of Committal. 
 (Title.) 
 
 of the ■•••• of . 
 
 make oath and say : — 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 707 
 
 1— That of Form No. 55 
 
 was at the order of this Court made on the : 
 
 day of 19 ... , ordered 
 
 to 
 
 (Here set out the order). 
 
 2 — That a copy of the said order was duly served on the. 
 said • 
 
 3— That the said 
 
 has failed to obey such order. 
 
 Swoen at, etc. 
 
 L. M. 
 
 Cross References: SS. 56, 65(3), 79. EE. 26-33, 49. E.F. 
 124. 
 
 No. 55. 
 
 Affidavit in support of Application for Committal of Debtor for 
 Contempt under Section 5.\. 
 
 (Title.) 
 I, : , the 
 
 authorized trustee of the estate of the said Debtor make oath 
 and say : — 
 
 1 — (That the said debtor did' attend at the first meeting of 
 
 his creditors held on the day of 
 
 19 ... , at and 
 
 wilfully Tefused to submit to be examined at such meeting in 
 respect of his property (or his creditors), the submitting to 
 examination being a duty imposed upon him by The Bankruptcy 
 Act). 
 
 (1 — (a) That the said debtor did wilfully fail to attend a ( a ) i ncaS e 
 
 meeting of his creditors held on the meeting in 
 
 day of 19, , at 3^S ionis 
 
 {or to wait on me at my office on the day of meeting" 
 
 19 . . ), the attending such meeting (or waiting S a S^ e .< the 
 
 on me) being a duty imposed upon him by The Bankruptcy first." 
 Act). 
 
 ■ (or 1 — That tie said debtor has wilfully failed to execute 
 (here describe the deed, etc., that he has failed to execute), the 
 execution of such deed when required by me being a duty im- 
 posed upon him by the Bankruptcy _Aqt). 
 
 2 — (That the said debtor was on the day 
 
 of 19 ... , duly served with a notice, a 
 
 copy of which is hereunto annexed, by leaving the same at his 
 usual place of residence, requiring him to attend the said meet- 
 ing, (or to execute the above-mentioned deed, etc.). 
 
 (or 1 — That the said debtor has wilfully failed to perform 
 the duty imposed upon him- by The Bankruptcy Act, section 
 
T08. THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.. 
 
 Forms Hos. 54 (here insert any act he has been required to. do by any special 
 56,57 order of the Court, stating the day on which the order was 
 made) . ' 
 
 (2 — That the said debtor was duly served' with a copy of 
 such order by leaving the same at his usual place of residence on 
 the day of . . 19 . . . ) . 
 
 (or 1 — That the said debtor has failed to deliver up posses- 
 sion of (here state the property he has failed to deliver up) 
 which property is divisible amongst his creditors under the said 
 Act and which said property was (or is) in his possession or 
 control, he having been required by me to^deliver up the said 
 property by notice, a copy of which is hereunto annexed, and 
 
 which notice was duly served upon him on the .day of 
 
 19..., at ). 
 
 Sworn at, etc. 
 
 Authorized Trustee. 
 
 Cross References : SS. 54, 79. " EE. 14-19, 26-33, 49, 113. 
 FF. 56-59. E.F. 125. 
 
 No. 56. 
 
 Notice of Application for Committal under Section 5\. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 To the said A. B. 
 
 Take notice that an application will be made on behalf of 
 
 the authorized trustee of .the property 
 
 of the said debtor before The Honourable Mr. Justice 
 
 at his 'Chambers at in the 
 
 of at the hour of o'clock 
 
 in the noon or so soon thereafter as the 
 
 application may be heard for an order for your committal to 
 gaol for contempt of this Court, you having failed to perform 
 the duty imposed on you by the fifty-fourth section of the said 
 Act (here set out the duty he has failed to perform). 
 
 And further take notice that you are required to attend the 
 Court on such day at the hour before stated to show cause why 
 an order for your committal should not be made. 
 
 Dated this day of .19.,, . 
 
 Cross References: SS. 54, 65(3). EB. 14-19, 49, 113, 152. 
 FF. 55, 57-59. E.F. 128. 
 
 No. 57. 
 
 Order for Committal under Section 5J/. ' 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 Upon the application of the authorized trustee of the pro- 
 perty of the Debtor, and upon hearing the Debtor (or if he does 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 709 
 
 not appear so slate), and reading the affidavit of (here imcrt Forms Nos. 
 
 name and description of person by whom the notice to show 58.59 
 
 cause was served), and upon reading the affidavit of (enter 
 evidence), and it'appearing that the Debtor has been guilty of a 
 contempt of this 'Court by having failed to (here follow the 
 notice), it is ordered that the Debtor do stand committed to 
 
 (here insert gaol) for his contempt^ for the period of 
 
 from the execution of the warrant issued hereunder. 
 
 Dated this day of 19 . . . 
 
 Cross References : SS. 54, 65(3). RR. 49. 152. FF. 35-56, 
 58-59. E.F. 132. 
 
 No. 58. 
 
 Warrant for Committal for Contempt. 
 (Title.) 
 
 To X. Y., officer of this Court, and to the Governor or 
 Keeper of the (here insert the gaol). 
 
 Whereas by an order of this Court bearing date the 
 
 , day of 1 9 . . . , it was 
 
 ordered that the said debtor (or L. M. of ) 
 
 should stand committed for contempt of this Court. 
 
 These are therefore to require yoti the said X. Y. to take the 
 said A. B. (or L. M.) and to deliver him to the Governor or 
 Keeper of the above-named gaol, and you the said Governor or 
 Keeper to receive the said A. B. and him safely to keep in the 
 
 said gaol and in your custody for a period of 
 
 from the date of the execution of this warrant, or for such 
 shorter- period as the Court shall order, and you the said Gover- 
 nor or Keeper shall, while the said A. B. is in your custody, and 
 at all times when the Court shall so direct, produce the said 
 A. B. before the Court. 
 
 Dated this day of 19 . . . 
 
 Cross References: SS. 54, 65(3), 72. RR. 44-49. FF. 55-57, 
 59-61. E.F. 134. 
 
 No. 59. 
 
 Order for Discharge from Custody on Contempt. 
 (Title.) 
 
 Upon the application made this day 
 
 01 for A.B., who was committed 
 
 to gaol for contempt by order of this Court, dated the 
 
 day of 19. . ., and upon 
 
 reading his affidavit showing that he has cleared (or is desirous 
 of clearing) his contempt, and has paid the costs occasioned 
 thereby, and upon hearing the authorized trustee (or CD. of 
 ), it is ordered that the Governor or 
 
710 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Forms Nos. Keeper of (here insert name of gaol) do discharge the said A. B. 
 60 ' 61 out of his custody, as to the said contempt. 
 
 Dated this day of 19 . . . 
 
 Cross References: S. 54. EE. 44-49. E.F. 135. 
 
 No. 60. 
 
 Warrant of Seizure. 
 (Title.) 
 
 Whereas on the day of 19 ... , 
 
 a receiving order was made against the said debtor (or an 
 authorized assignment was made by the said debtor) and it has 
 been made to appear that (a) (here set out facts bringing within 
 either (a), (6) or (c) of Sec. 55). 
 
 These are therefore to require you forthwith to enter into 
 and upon the house and houses, and other the premises of the 
 said debtor, and also in all other place and places belonging to 
 the said debtor where any of his goods and moneys are, or are 
 reputed to be ; and there seize all books, papers, money and goods, 
 except only such property which is not divisible among his credi- 
 tors as provided by section 25 of The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 And that which you shall so seize you shall safely" detain and 
 keep in your possession until you shall receive orders in writing 
 for the disposal thereof from the authorized trustee ; and in case 
 of resistance or of not having the key or keys of any doors or 
 lock of any premises belonging to the said debtor where any of 
 his goods are or are suspected to be, you shall break open, or 
 cause the same to be broken open for the better execution. of this 
 warrant. 
 
 Dated this day of .■ . . , 19 . . . 
 
 To X. Y., the officer of this Court and his assistants. 
 
 Cross References: SS. 55, 72. EE. 44, 45. FF. 58, 61. 
 E.F. 138. 
 
 No. 61. 
 
 Warrant of Arrest against Debtor. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 To X. Y. the officer of this Court and all peace officers within 
 the jurisdiction of the said Court, and to the Governor or Keeper 
 of the (here insert gaol). 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 7 jj 
 
 Whereas, by evidence taken upon oath, it has been made to Form No. 62 
 
 appear to the satisfaction of the Court that there is probable 
 
 reason to suspect and believe that the said A. B. has absconded, 
 or is about to abscond from Canada, with a view of avoiding pay- 
 ment of the debt in respect of which the bankruptcy petition was 
 filed (or of avoiding appearance to a bankruptcy petition) (or 
 avoiding examination in respect of his affairs) (or otherwise 
 avoiding, delaying or embarrassing the proceedings in bank- 
 ruptcy against him) . 
 
 (Or that there is probable cause for believing that the said 
 A.B. is about to remove his goods with a view of preventing or 
 delaying possession being taken of them by the trustee of the 
 property of the said A.B.) 
 
 (Or that there is probable ground for believing that the said 
 A.B. has concealed or is about to conceal or destroy any of his 
 goods or any books, documents or writings which might be of 
 use to the trustee of the property of the said A. B. or to the 
 creditors of the said A. B., in the course of the bankruptcy (or 
 authorized assignment) proceedings. 
 
 (Or whereas by evidence taken upon oath it has been made 
 to appear to the satisfaction of this Court that the said A. B. 
 has removed certain of his goods and chattels in his possession 
 above the value of $25.00 without the leave of the Trustee, that 
 is to say)' (here describe the goods and chattels). 
 
 These are therefore to require you the said (here name bailiff 
 or other officer) to take the said A. B. and to deliver him to the 
 Governor or Keeper of the above named gaol, and you the said 
 Governor or Keeper to receive the said A. B. and him safely to 
 keep in the said gaol until such time as this Court may order. 
 
 Dated this day of 19 . . . 
 
 Cross References: SS. 55, 72. ER. 44, 45. F-F. 58, 60. 
 E.F. 139. 
 
 No. 62. 
 
 Appointment for Examination of Debtor or Others. 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 In the matter of the estate of 
 
 authorized assignor (or bankrupt) . 
 
 Upon the application of the trustee in the above matter I do 
 
 hereby appoint 
 
 the day of • A.D. 19 
 
 at the hour of o'clock in the noon 
 
 at in the 
 
 f for the examination 
 
712 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Forms Nos. upon oath before me of 
 
 63 ' 64 the above named Debtor (or , 
 
 an agent, clerk, servant, officer, director or employee' as the case 
 may be, of the above named debtor),- under the said Act. 
 
 Dated at this- 
 
 day of A.D. 19.... 
 
 Registrar (or Special Examiner) 
 (or other proper officer). 
 
 Cross References : S. 56. BE. 131-134. FP. 63, 64. 
 
 No. 63. 
 
 Declaration by Shorthand Writer. 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 ] li the matter of the estate of 
 
 I, . . . - , of the 
 
 of in the Province of 
 
 the shorthand writer appointed by the 
 
 Registrar (or Special Examiner or as the case may be) to take 
 
 down the examination of 
 
 do make oath and say that I will truly and 
 
 faithfully take down the question and answers put and given 
 
 by the said 
 
 in this matter, and will deliver true and faithf ul transcripts 
 thereof as such Registrar (or Special Examiner or as the case 
 may be) may direct. 
 
 Sworn before me at the ■ of 
 
 in the Province of this 
 
 day of A.D. 19 
 
 Registrar (or Special Examiner) 
 (or as the case may be). 
 
 Cross References: S. 56. RR. 38, 131-134. FP. 62, 64. 
 E.P. 71. 
 
 No. 64. 
 
 Notes of Examination of Debior vr Others. 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 In the matter of the estate of 
 
 authorized assignor (or bankrupt) 
 
 Examination of 
 
 before Mr 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. ij la 
 
 (Uegistrar or Special Examiner) the - Forms Nos. 
 
 day of A.D. 19 65, 66 
 
 The above-named , 
 
 being sworn and examined at the time and place above men- 
 tioned upon the several questions following being put and pro- 
 pounded to him, gave the several answers thereto respectively 
 following, each question, that is to say: — 
 
 These are the notes of the examination referred to in the 
 
 memorandum of the examination of 
 
 taken before me this . ., 
 
 day of 19 
 
 Begistrar (or Special Examiner). 
 
 Stenographer. 
 
 Cross References: S. 56. EE. 38, 131-134. FF. 62, 63. 
 E.P. 72. 
 
 No. 65. 
 
 Order lo Postmaster General under Section 57. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 Upon the application of 
 
 the authorized trustee of the property of the above debtor, it is 
 
 ordered that for a period of three months from the 
 
 day of 19 . . ., all post letters, telegrams 
 
 and postal pockets directed or addressed to the, said debtor, at 
 (a) shall he re-directed, sent or delivered by the Postmaster (a) here 
 -General, or officers acting under him to, (b) except any letter on insert the 
 which there is a specific direction signed by the authorized trus- dresses, 
 tee that it is to be delivered as addressed, if possible, and that ... , . , 
 a copy of this order he forthwith transmitted by the authorized trustee at 
 trustee to the Postmaster General and to the Postmaster in or ?^ herwis t e 
 charge of the Post Office at » may direct. 
 
 Dated this day of 19 . . . 
 
 Cross References: E.F. 140. S. 57. 
 
 No. 66. 
 
 Application for Order of Discharge. 
 (Title.) 
 
 I, A. B. of the 
 
 of. ; 
 
 in the Province of 
 
 having been adjudged bankrupt on the day 
 
714 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Fo ™ s Nos. of A.D. 19. . . ., or having made 
 
 67 ' ° 8 an authorized assignment on the day "of 
 
 19 . . . ., and being desirous of obtaining nly dis- 
 charge, hereby apply to the Court to fix a day for hearing my 
 application. 
 
 Annexed hereto is the. certificate of the authorized trustee 
 certifying the number of my creditors. 
 
 Dated at 
 
 this day of ,19 
 
 (Signed) , A. B. 
 
 To the Registrar of the Court. 
 
 Cross References: SS. 58-61. RR. 135-144. FF. 67-77, 
 80-81. E.F. 105. 
 
 No. 67. 
 
 Notice to Trustee of Application for Discharge. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 The bankrupt (or authorized assignor) 
 
 having applied to the Court for his discharge, the Court has 
 
 fixed the day of 19 , 
 
 at o'clock in the .......... noon 
 
 at .for hearing the 
 
 application. 
 
 Dated at 
 
 this day of 19 . 
 
 Registrar. 
 To ...:..., 
 
 Atithorized Trustee of the'Estate-of the said. ...... 
 
 Cross References: SS. 58-61. RR. 135-144. FF. G6, 68-77, 
 80-81. E.F. 107. 
 
 No. 68. 
 
 Notice to Creditors of Application for Discharge. 
 (Title.) 
 
 Take notice that the above named bankrupt (or authorized 
 assignor) has applied to the .Court for his discharge, and that 
 the Court has fixed the day 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 715 
 
 of at o'clock. Forms Nos. 
 
 in the noon, at 69, 70 
 
 for hearing the application. 
 
 Authorized Trustee. 
 
 Note: .See sections 58, 59 and 60 o£ The Bankruptcy Act dealing 
 with the discharge of a debtor. 
 
 Cross References: SS. 58-61, 83. BE. 135-144, 16 17. 
 FF. 66-67, 69-77, 80-81. E.F. 108. 
 
 No. 69. 
 
 Order granting Discharge Unconditionally. 
 
 (Title.) 
 On the application of A.B. of 
 
 adjudged bankrupt on the day of 
 
 19. . . ., (or who made an authorized assignment on the 
 
 day of 19 ... ) and upon 
 
 taking into consideration the report of the authorized trustee as 
 to the bankrupt's conduct and affairs and upon hearing the 
 authorized trustee, and CD., B.F., etc., creditors, (as the case 
 may be). 
 
 And whereas- it has not been proved that the bankrupt 
 (or authorized assignor) has committed any of the offences 
 mentioned in The Bankruptcy Act, and proof has not been made 
 of any of the facts mentioned in sections 59 or 60 of the said Act, 
 or that th& bankrupt (or authorized assignor) has been guilty 
 of any misconduct in relation to his property or affairs. 
 
 It is ordered that he be and he hereby is discharged. 
 
 Cross References: SS. 58-61. EE. 135-144. FF. 66-68, 
 70-77, 80-81. E.F. 109. 
 
 No. 70. 
 
 Order Refusing Discharge. 
 (Title.) 
 On the application of 
 
 (Commencement as in Form 69.) 
 And whereas it has been proved that the bankrupt (or autho- 
 rized assignor) has committed the ' following offences namely — 
 
 (Here state particulars) 
 or 
 And whereas it has not been proved that the bankrupt (or 
 authorized assignor)' has committed any of the offences men- 
 tioned in The Bankruptcy Act but proof has been made of the 
 
7.16 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Form Mo. 71 following facts under section 59 of said Act' {or/and section 60 
 of said Act) namely — 
 
 {Here state particulars) 
 
 or/and that he has been guilty of misconduct in relation to his 
 property and affairs, namely — 
 
 {Here state particulars) 
 
 It is ordered that the bankrupt's {or authorized assignor's) 
 discharge be and it is hereby refused. 
 
 Dated this * day of 19. . . 
 
 Cross References: SS. 58-61. EE. 135-144. FF: 66-69, 
 71-77, 80-81. E.F. lit). 
 
 No. 71. 
 
 Order Suspending Discharge. 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 On the application of .... ; 
 
 {Commencement as in form 69.) 
 
 And whereas it has not been proved that the bankrupt {or 
 authorized assignor) has committed any of the offences men- 
 tioned in The Bankruptcy Act {or it has been proved that the 
 bankrupt {or authorized assignor) has committed the following 
 offences namely — {set them out), but the Court has for the fal- 
 lowing special reasons {state them) determined that his dis- 
 charge shall not on that ground be absolutely refused ; but proof 
 has been made of the following facts under section 59 {or/ and 
 section 60) of the said Act. 
 
 {Here state particulars) 
 or/and that he has been guilty of misconduct in relation to his 
 property and affairs, namely — 
 
 {Here state particulars) 
 
 It is ordered that the bankrupt's {or authorized assignor's) 
 discharge be suspended until a dividend of not less than 50 
 cents on the dollar has heen paid to the creditors, with liberty 
 to the bankrupt {or authorized assignor) at any time after the 
 expiration of one year from the date of this order to apply for a 
 modification thereof, pursuant to section 58.. 
 
 or 
 
 It is ordered that the bankrupt's {or authorized assignor's) 
 
 discharge be suspended for years and that he be 
 
 discharged as from the day of 
 
 19.... 
 
 Cross References: SS. 58-61. EE. 135-144. FF. 66-70, 
 72-77, 80-81. E.F. 111. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 717 
 
 ^°- 72. JForms Nos. 
 
 72 73 
 
 Order of Discharge where only facts proved that Assets not equal " 
 
 to 50c. on the Dollar. 
 
 The Bankruptcy Act. 
 
 On the application of 
 
 {Commencement as in Form 69.) 
 
 And whereas it has not been proved that the bankrupt (re- 
 authorized assignor) has committed any of the offences men- ' 
 tioned in The Bankruptcy Act, and whereas the only fact under 
 sections 59 and 60 of which proof has been made is the fact 
 that the bankrupt's {or authorized assignor's) assets are not of 
 a value equal to- 50c. on the dollar on the amount of his 
 unsecured liabilities. 
 
 It is ordered that the bankrupt's {or authorized assignor's) 
 discharge be suspended for and that he be discharged as from 
 the day of 19... 
 
 Dated this day of 
 
 19... 
 
 Cross References: SS. 58-61. BE. 135-144. FF. 66-11, 
 73-77, 80-81. E.F. 112. 
 
 No. 73. 
 
 Order of Discharge subject to Conditions as to Earnings, After-' 
 acquired Property, and Income. 
 
 {Title.) 
 On the application of 
 
 {Commencement as in Form 69.) 
 
 And whereas it has not been proved (a) (a) Here 
 
 It is ordered that the bankrupt {or authorized assignor) be *!•*'? par " 
 discharged subject to the following conditions as to his future the finding of 
 earnings, after-acquired property, and income : — the Court- 
 
 After setting aside out of the bankrupt's {or authorized 
 assignor's) earnings, after-acquired property and income the 
 
 yearly sum of $ for the support of himself and his 
 
 family, the bankrupt {or authorized assignor) shall pay the 
 surplus, if any {or such portion of such surplus as the Court 
 may determine) , of such earnings, after-acquired property, and 
 income to the authorized trustee for distribution among the 
 creditors of the estate. An account shall, on the first day of 
 January in every year, or within fourteen days thereafter, be 
 filed in these proceedings and with the trustee by the bankrupt 
 {or authorized assignor) and verified by affidavit setting forth 
 
718 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 F orm No. 74 a statement of his receipts from earnings, after-acquired pro- 
 perty and income during the year immediately preceding the 
 said date, and the surplus payable under this order shall be paid 
 by the bankrupt (or authorized assignor) to the authorized trus- 
 tee within fourteen days of the filing of the' said account. 
 
 Dated this day of 19 . . . 
 
 Cross References: SS. 56-61. EE. 135-144. PF. 66-72, 
 74-77, 80-81. E.F. 113. 
 
 No. 74. 
 
 Order of Discharge subject to a Condition Requiring the Bank- 
 rupt or Assignor to consent to Judgment being entered 
 against him. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 On the application of 
 
 (Commencement as in Form 69.) 
 
 It is ordered that the bankrupt (or authorized assignor) be 
 discharged subject to the following condition to be fulfilled 
 before his discharge takes effect, namely, he shall, -before the 
 signing of this order, consent to judgment being entered against 
 him in this Court ( by the authorized trustee for the sum of 
 
 $ , being the balance (or part of the balance) of 
 
 Ihe debts provable in the estate which is not satisfied at the date 
 of this order, and for $ cost of judgment. 
 
 And it is further ordered, without prejudice and subject to 
 any execution which may be issued on the said judgment with 
 
 the leave of Court, that the said sum of $....' 
 
 be paid out of the future earnings or after-acquired property of 
 the bankrupt (or authorized assignor) in manner following, 
 that is to say, 'after setting aside out of the bankrupt's (or 
 authorized assignor's) earnings and after-acquired property a 
 
 yearly sum of $ for the support of 
 
 himself and his family, the bankrupt (or authorized assignor) 
 shall pay the surplus, if any, (or such portion of such surplus 
 as the Court may determine) , to the authorized trustee for dis- 
 tribution among the creditors in the estate. An account shall, 
 on the 1st day of January in each year, or within fourteen days 
 thereafter, be filed in these proceedings, and with the authorized 
 trustee, by the bankrupt (or authorized assignor) setting forth 
 a statement of his receipts or earnings, after-acquired property, 
 and income, during the year immediately preceding the said 
 date, and the surplus payable under this order shall be paid by 
 the bankrupt to the authorized trustee within fourteen days of 
 the filing of the said account. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. ij-j_y 
 
 . And it is further ordered that, upon the required consent Forms Nos. 
 
 being given, Judgment may be entered against the bankrupt (or ^^ 
 
 authorized assignor) in this Court for the said sum of $ 
 
 together with $ for costs 
 
 of Judgment. 
 *i 
 
 Dated this day of 19 . . . 
 
 Cross References: SS. 58-61. EE. 135-144. FF. 66-73, 
 75-77, 80-81. E.F. 114. ' 
 
 No. 75. 
 
 Consent of Bankrupt (or Authorized Assignor) to Judgment 
 * being entered for balance or part of balance of Provable 
 . Debts. 
 
 {Title.) 
 
 Ee 
 
 I, A. B., of 
 
 the above named bankrupt (or authorized assignor), do hereby 
 consent to Judgment being entered against me in this Court by 
 
 the authorized trustee ' 
 
 for the sum of $ , being the balance or 
 
 part of the balance of the debt provable under my bankruptcy 
 (or under my authorized assignment) which is not satisfied at 
 
 the' date of my discharge, together with $ 
 
 for costs of judgment, but this consent is subject to the pro- 
 vision contained in The Bankruptcy Act with regard to the 
 issue of execution on such judgment. 
 
 Dated this day of 19 . . . 
 
 (Signed) A. B. 
 
 Cross References: SS. 58-61. EE. 135-144. FF. 66-74, 
 76, 77, 80-81. E.F. 115. . 
 
 No. 76. 
 
 Judgment to be entered pursuant to the Consent. 
 
 In the Court of 
 
 in Bankruptcy 
 
 Between : — 
 
 (Name of authorized trustee.) 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 AND 
 
 A.B.. 
 
 Defendant. 
 
720 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Forms Nos. The day of . . 19 
 
 77,78 
 
 Pursuant to the order made herein and dated the. , 
 
 day of whereby it was ordered that 
 
 (Recite substance of Order.) 
 
 And the consent mentioned in the said order having been' 
 given and filed. 
 
 It is this day adjudged that the plaintiff recover against the 
 
 said defendant $ } together with 
 
 $ for costs of judgment. 
 
 Dated this day of 19 . . . 
 
 Cross References: SS. 58-61. EE. 135-144. FF.'. 66-75, 
 ~,7, 80-81. E.F. 116. 
 
 No. 77. 
 
 Affidavit by Debtor, whose Discharge has been granted condi- 
 tionally as to After-acquired Property or Income. 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 I, 
 
 the above-named debtor, make oath and say. as follows : 
 
 1. I have since the date of my discharge resided and carried 
 
 on business at 
 
 and I now reside and carry on business at 
 
 2. The statement hereto annexed is a full, true and complete 
 account of all moneys earned by me and of all property and 
 income acquired or received by me since the date of my discharge 
 (or since the date when last I filed a statement of after-acquired 
 
 property and income in Court, namely — the day of 
 
 19--0- 
 
 Sworn at, etc. 
 
 Signature of Debtor. 
 
 Cross References: SS. 58-61. EE. 135-144. FF. 66-76, 
 80-81. E.F. 117. 
 
 No. 78. 
 
 Order Annulling Adjudication under Section 62(1). 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 On the application of E. S. of 
 
 and on reading < and 
 
 hearing , It is ordered that the 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 731 
 
 adjudication of Bankruptcy of the above named Forms Mos. 
 
 under Order dated 79 to 81 
 
 of . . .■ ■ , be and the same is hereby 
 
 annulled. 
 
 Dated this day of 19 . . . 
 
 Cross References : S. 62. F. 63. 
 
 Wo. 79. 
 
 Notice of Order Annulling Adjudication under Section 62(3). 
 
 (Title.) 
 
 Take Notice that the Order of Adjudication bearing date 
 
 the day of . 19 . . . 
 
 under which A.B. of . was 
 
 adjudged bankrupt has been annulled by Order of this Court 
 dated the day of 19 . . . 
 
 Dated at this 
 
 day of 19... 
 
 Cross References : S. 62. F. 78. 
 
 No. 80. 
 
 Certificate of Removal of Disqualification. 
 (Title.) 
 
 Whereas an order of discharge was, on the 
 
 day of A.D. 19. . ., granted to A.B. 
 
 the above-named bankrupt (or authorized assignor) ; 
 
 It is heeeby certified that the bankruptcy of the said A.B. 
 was caused by misfortune without any misconduct on his part. 
 
 Dated this day of • 
 
 A.D. 19... 
 
 Eegistrar. 
 
 Cross References : S. 60(3). BE. 135-144. FF. 66-77, 81. 
 E.F. 118. 
 
 No. 81, 
 
 Notice of Discharge of Bankrupt. 
 (Title.) 
 Take Notice that 
 
 the bankrupt (or authorized assignor) was discharged by order 
 B.c— 46 
 
722 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Forms Nos. of this Court bearing date the 
 
 82 to83 day of A.D. 19. 
 
 Dated at the . 
 
 day of A.D. 19 
 
 Authorized Trustee. 
 Cross References: SS. 61(5). EE. 135-144. FF. 66-77, 80. 
 
 No. 82. 
 
 Taxing Master's Certificate. 
 
 {Title.) 
 
 I hereby certify that I have taxed the bill of costs (or 
 charges) (or expenses) of Mr. CD., (here state capacity in 
 which employed or engaged) (where necessary add." pursuant 
 
 to an order of the Court dated the day 
 
 of 19 . . . .•"), and have allowed the same at 
 
 the sum of $ (where neces- 
 sary add " which sum is to be paid kkthe said C. D. by 
 
 as directed by the said order.") 
 
 Dated this day of 
 
 19.... 
 
 Taxing Master (or Eegistrar) 
 
 Cross References: RE. 54-61. 
 
 No. 83. 
 
 Subpoena. 
 (Title.) 
 
 George the Fifth, by the Grace of God, etc., to (the names 
 of witnesses may oe inserted) Greeting: We command you to 
 
 attend before at 
 
 on day the day of .' 19 ... , 
 
 at the hour of in the. noon, and 
 
 so from day to day until the above matter is heard- to give evi- 
 dence on behalf of (insert name). 
 
 Dated this day of '. 
 
 19.... 
 
 Eegistrar. 
 
 Cross References: EE. 10, 34-36, 120. F. 84. B.F. 14L 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 723 
 
 No. 84. Form No 84 
 
 Subpoena Duces Tecum. 
 (Title.) 
 
 George the Fifth by the Grace of God, &c, to (the name of 
 witness may be inserted) greeting : 
 
 "We command you to attend before 
 
 at on day the 
 
 day of 19 . . . . , at the hour of 
 
 in the noon, to give evidence on behalf 
 
 of and also to bring with you and 
 
 produce at the time and place aforesaid (specify documents to 
 le produced) . 
 
 Dated this day of 
 
 19.... 
 
 Eegistrar. 
 
 Cross References : EE. 10, 34-36, 120. F. 83. B.F. 143. 
 
724 THE BANKRUPTCY AGT. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 TARIFF OF COSTS. 
 
 Instructions : $ cts. 
 
 1 For petition or authorized assignment 4 00 
 
 2 To defend, oppose or attend upon, petition 4 00 
 
 ■'! For approval composition, extension or scheme 4 00 
 
 4 To attend on or oppose or defend any issue 4 00 
 
 5 For or to oppose notice of motion or application to Court 
 
 or Chambers 4 00 
 
 G For any affidavit 2 00 
 
 7 For or to answer interrogatories or cross-interrogatories or 
 
 to examine or attend on any examination of a debtor or 
 
 of any other person i 00 
 
 8 For any judgment or warrant ' 4 00 
 
 9 For commission or other like proceeding, or order for evi- 
 
 dence or examination » 4 00 
 
 10 For brief on any summary hearing, issue, trial or important 
 
 motion or application 5 00 
 
 11 To appeal or to oppose appeal ; 4 00 
 
 12 For any pleading 4 00 
 
 13 For any other important step or proceeding in any cause, 
 
 matter or proceeding not included in the above 4 00 
 
 Drawings, Pleadings, Etc. 
 
 14 Drafting — 
 
 (a) Statement of claim or defence or any pleadings 
 
 instructed by the Court or a Judge to be drawn 4 00 
 
 (6) Petition 4 00 
 
 (c) Issue, composition, extension or scheme 4 00 
 
 (d) Any other documents commencing a proceeding not 
 commenced by petition or statement of claim and any 
 document in answer to same 4 00 
 
 (e) Record 4 00 
 
 (/) Authorized assignment (including two duplicates) . 10 00 
 
 ( g ) Notice of motion, objections, contestation, etc •. . . 3 00 
 
 15 For every additional folio over ten, per folio 30 
 
 16 Engrossing same and for each copy to file and serve, per folio 15 
 
 17 Drawing interrogatories or cross-interrogatories, or answers 
 
 to either of the same, commission, letters rogatory or 
 
 other document of like nature, per folio 30 
 
 18 Engrossing and for each copy to file and serve, per folio .... 15 
 
 Affidavits. 
 
 19 Drawing affidavit, per folio 30 
 
 20 Engrossing and for each necessary copy, per folio 15 
 
 21 Preparing exhibits, each -. . . . .~: 20 
 
 Perusals. 
 
 22 Of (o) Statement of claim, defence or other pleading, 
 
 (b) Petition 
 
 (c) Issue, 
 
 (rf) Any other document commencing a proceeding not 
 commenced by petition or statement of claim and any 
 document in answer to same 3 00 
 
 23 Perusing any notice of motion, objections, contestations, etc. 2 00 
 
 24 Of each affidavit, including exhibits of a party adverse in 
 
 interest - 2 00 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 725 
 
 Perusals — Concluded. 
 
 $ cts. 
 
 25 Of interrogatories, cross-interrogatories or answers to either 
 
 of same, or any other document of a similar nature. ... 3 00 
 
 To be increased in the discretion of the taxing officer 3 0O 
 
 26 Of notice to produce or admit 2 00 
 
 27 Of any important notice or paper not otherwise mentioned. . 2 00 
 
 Writs. 
 
 28 All writs, warrants, certificates of judgment and lis pendens, 
 
 including attendances to issue, register and deliver same . S 00 
 
 29 (Renewals of same, including attendances to issue, register and 
 
 deliver the same S 00 
 
 30 Subpoena ad testificandum ., 1 50 
 
 31 Subpoena duces tecum , 3 00 
 
 32 For every additional folio over four . . 30 
 
 Services. 
 
 33 Service of petition, or other document by which any proceed- 
 
 ing' is commenced 3 00 
 
 34 If served at over two miles from nearest place of business 
 
 or office of solicitor serving same, for each mile beyond 
 
 two, each way 30 
 
 35 For service out of jurisdiction, such allowance as taxing 
 
 officer thinks proper .' 
 
 36 Attending to serve any other document 2 00 
 
 Beiefs. 
 
 37 Drawing brief ..' 3 00 
 
 38 Every additional folio over five 30 
 
 Coptes. 
 
 39 Copies for petitions, pleadings, notices, demands, minutes, 
 
 orders, judgments, appointments, subpoenas and any other 
 documents when no other provision is made and copies 
 are properly allowable per folio, for each copy 15 
 
 Notices, Demands, Etc. 
 
 40 Notice to admit or produce 1 00 
 
 To be increased in the discretion of the taxing officer. 
 
 41 Appointment for examination of debtor witness or for any 
 
 other purpose 3 00 
 
 Engrossing and each copy, per folio •. . . 15 
 
 42 Notice of trial, hearing of issue, or summary hearing 2 00 
 
 43 Every notice under any other statute 2 00 
 
 44 All other/ notices and demands not above specified including 
 
 notices to Gazette, newspaper, etc 2 00 
 
 45 Every folio over three of .any of above 30 
 
 Attendances. - 
 
 46 Attendances consequent on service of notice to produce or 
 
 admit, or on inspection of documents, or notice under 
 
 any statute 2 00 
 
 47 Attendance for special leave for a service of notice of motion 
 
 or of appeal, in the discretion of the taxing officer .... 3 00 
 
 48 On consultation with counsel, where proper in the discretion 
 
 of the taxing officer 10 00 
 
 49 Solicitor attending court or chambers, including partner of 
 
 counsel, when no second counsel fee taxed, per hour. ... 5 00 
 To be increased in the discretion of the taxing officer to an 
 
 amount not to exceed, per hour 10 00 
 
726 • THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Attendances — Concluded. 
 
 $ cts. 
 
 50 To obtain or give undertaking to defend when service accepted 
 
 by solicitor ; 2 00 
 
 51 To file any paper or for any appointment, or to receive, accept 
 
 or admit service of any paper not otherwise provided for, 1 00 
 
 52 Solicitor attending to procure evidence for the trial or peti- 
 
 tion, in addition to all proper travelling expenses. Such 
 amount as the taxing officer thinks proper 
 
 53 Every other attendance, per hour 5 00 
 
 To be increased in the discretion of the taxing officer. 
 
 54 Attendances, correspondences, etc., incurred through negotia- 
 
 tions by a defendant creditor or debtor to gain time, or 
 in the endeavour to compromise or settle the action, 
 petition or proceeding. 
 Such allowance as the taxing officer deems proper. 
 
 Note: — Throughout this tariff a telephone attendance shall 
 be an attendance. 
 
 Letters. 
 
 55 Each letter 100 
 
 56 Perusal of each letter 1 00 
 
 These two items may be increased in the discretion of the 
 
 ' taxing officer. 
 
 Bonds. 
 
 57 Upon giving of any bond in any proceeding, including draw- 
 
 ing and engrossing same and all affidavits and copies,. 
 
 and necessary attendances and taking of affidavits 15 00 
 
 Judgment, Rule or Order. 
 
 58 Drawing minutes of judgment or order 3 00 
 
 For every folio over five, per folio : 30 
 
 59 Engrossing judgment roll or order after settlement or 
 
 minutes* per folio 15 
 
 60 Judgment when no defence and no minutes necessary 3 00 
 
 61 Appointment to settle or pass judgment or order of court.. 1 00 
 
 62 Attending to settle minutes : . . 3 00 
 
 To be increased in the discretion of the taxing officer in diffi- 
 cult or contested cases. 
 
 63 Attending to enter judgment 3 00 
 
 64 Attending for any praecipe order 1 00 
 
 65 Any praecipe order 1 00 
 
 Payment Into or Out of Court. 
 
 G6 (a) Instructions to pay into court 3 00 
 
 (6) Instructions to obtain moneys out of court o 00 
 
 (c) Prfecipe to pay in or obtain out of court 1 00 
 
 (d) Attending for direction 1 00 
 
 (e) Attending for cheque to pay in 1 00 
 
 (/) Attending to pay in or receive cheque in payment out. 1 00 
 
 (g) Praecipe for certificate of accountant 1 00 
 
 (fe) Attending for certificate of accountant 1 00 
 
 (t) Drawing receipt or certificate of 'bank as to payment 
 
 in or non-payment in o nn 
 
 (;') Attending to enquire at bank and for certificate - 00 
 
 Taxation op Costs. 
 
 67 Drawing bill of costs for taxation, per folio . 30 
 
 68 Engrossing and each copy to serve, each per folio O ia 
 
 69 Notice of taxation or appointment to tax 1 W 
 
 70 Every copy, per folio " ^o 
 
 71 Attending on taxation, per hour ° w 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. ^27 
 
 Counsel Fees. 
 
 $ ets. 
 
 72 Settling- 
 
 Co) Statement of claim, defence or any other pleading, 
 (6) Petition, 
 
 (c) Special notice of motion, 
 
 (d) Interrogatories or answers to same, 
 
 (e) Cross-interrogatories or answers to same, 
 (/) Issue, 
 
 (g) Application in connection with any composition, exten- 
 sion or scheme, 
 
 (h) Any other document or proceeding of like nature to 
 
 any of the above , 10 00 
 
 Any of the above to be increased in the discretion of the tax- 
 ing officer. 
 
 73 Attendance of counsel on — 
 
 (a) Examination for discovery, 
 (6) Cross-examination on affidavits, 
 
 (c) Examination of witness on motion, 
 
 (d) Examination of witness de bene esse, 
 
 (e) Examination of debtor, 
 
 (/) Or any similar examination 15 00 
 
 Any of the above to be increased in the discretion of the tax- 
 ing officer. 
 
 74 On consultation with solicitor or client, where proper, in the 
 
 discretion of the taxing officer 5 00 
 
 75 Advising on evidence 10 00 
 
 To be increased in the discretion of the taxing officer. 
 
 76 Attendance of counsel on adjournment in judge's chambers 
 
 or on any motion when unopposed 10 00 
 
 77 Attendance of counsel upon adjournment in judge's chambers 
 
 when opposed lo 00 
 
 78 Attendance of counsel upon adjournment before Registrar. . 5 00 
 
 79 Fee of counsel on ex parte motion or application to Registrar 10 00 
 
 80 Attendance of counsel on opposed motion or application to 
 
 Registrar 15 00 
 
 Both of above items subject to increase in the discretion of 
 the taxing officer. 
 
 81 Counsel fee on all ex parte motions or applications to court 
 
 or judge in chambers 20 00 
 
 82 Counsel fee on opposed motion in court or before judge in 
 
 chambers 40 00 
 
 To be increased in the discretion of the taxing officer. 
 
 83 Counsel fee with brief on — 
 
 (a) Petition, 
 
 (6) Trial, 
 
 (c) Approval of any composition, extension or scheme, 
 
 (d) Trial of issue, 
 
 (e) Summary hearing, 
 
 (/) Application for discharge by trustee or when opposed. 50 00 
 To be increased in the discretion of the taxing officer. 
 For second counsel, two-thirds of the fee allowed to first 
 counsel. 
 
 84 Counsel fee on settlement or compromise when proceedings 
 
 have been taken or services rendered by a barrister in 
 or out of court to expedite proceedings, save costs, to 
 compromise or settle actions, proceedings or claims, or 
 in negotiations leading up to a compromise or settle- 
 ment, a counsel fee or allowance may be made there- 
 for in the discretion of the taxing officer, which may be 
 by way of commission or percentage on the amount 
 recovered or defended, or on the value of the property 
 about which the action, suit, claim or transaction is 
 concerned, or the same may be made by way of quantum 
 meruit for the services rendered or upon such other basis 
 as the taxing offices thinks proper. 
 
728 THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
 
 Counsel Fees — Concluded. 
 
 $ cts. 
 
 So In all cases of fees or allowances which are in the discretion 
 of the taxing officer or which may be increased in the 
 discretion of the taxing officer, the taxing officer shall 
 have regard, to all the circumstances including (hut not 
 in any way restricting the generality of the foregoing), 
 the nature, importance or urgency of the" matters in- 
 volved, the time occupied, the circumstances and interest 
 of the person by whom the costs are payable, the general- 
 conduct of the proceedings, and the amount, skill, labor 
 and responsibility involved, and the preparation and con- 
 sideration of any written argument when requested by 
 a judge. 
 
 SG In case of any service rendered in any action or proceeding 
 of a like nature to any of the services provided for in 
 this tariff and not expressly covered by any item in the 
 tariff, a fee shall be allowed by the taxing officer of an 
 amount equal to the tariff fee for the services most 
 nearly resembling the one in question. 
 
 87 In all eases of fees or allowances which may be allowed in 
 the discretion of the taxing officer or which may be 
 increased in his discretion, there shall be a right of 
 appeal to a judge in chambers and the fee or allow- 
 ance so made or increased shall be reconsidered by 
 such judge, whether the exercise of the discretion per- 
 tains to the quantum of fees or relates to a question of 
 principle. 
 This right shall be in addition to any existing right of appeal. 
 
 Solicitous' Fees on Collection of Accounts. 
 
 SS Claims collected after notice or demand and enter as a whole 
 or in instalments : — 
 
 on first $300 or less -. 15% 
 
 on excess over $300 up to $1,000 8% 
 
 on over $1,000 4% 
 
 minimum charge, $5. 
 
 on claims less than $10 charge not to exceed one-half 
 the claim. 
 Where no collection made, no charge. 
 
 Allowance to Witnesses. 
 
 89 To witnesses residing within five miles of the court house 
 
 where action is tried, or the place at which they are 
 required to attend, for each day's attendance 3 00 
 
 90 To witnesses residing more than five miles from the court 
 
 house where the action is tried, or the place at which 
 
 they are required to attend, for each day's attendance. . 5 00 
 
 91 To barristers, solicitors, civil, mechanical and electrical 
 
 engineers, architects, chartered accountants, dentists, 
 dental surgeons, physicians and surgeons, when called 
 upon to give evidence in consequence of any professional 
 services rendered by them, or to give professional opin-_ 
 
 ions for each day's attendance 6 00 
 
 In addition to the foregoing fees, the travelling expenses of 
 witnesses residing more than five miles from the court house 
 where the action is tried, or the place at which they are required 
 to attend, shall be allowed according to the sums actually and 
 reasonably expended, but shall in no case exceed twenty cents per 
 mile one way. 
 
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 729 
 
 PART III. 
 
 SCALE OF FEES.— PAYABLE ON PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 .? cts. 
 Issuing and filing of every bankruptcy petition, including the 
 
 sealing thereof and one duplicate or copy 5 00 
 
 Filing and approving every bond, with or without sureties, includ- 
 ing affidavits ; or memorandum as to payment into Court, in- 
 cluding such payment in . . .• 2 50 
 
 Every receiving order, excepting an order for interim receiver. . 5 00 
 
 Every interim receiving order 2 00 
 
 Every other order 2 00 
 
 Every application to approve a composition extension or scheme. 5 00 
 
 Every application for an order for discharge 5 00 
 
 Every other notice of motion or application filed, including 
 
 notice of appeal 2 00 
 
 Every affidavit filed 20 
 
 Every subpoena or warrant 2 00 
 
 Every lis pendens 2 00 
 
 Every statement of affairs, filing 1 00 
 
 For filing any other document or proceeding not otherwise par- 
 ticularly provided for 20 
 
 For making copies or certified copies of any proceeding, per 
 
 folio of 100 words 15 
 
 Taxation of costs, per hour. (Including taxing officer's certifi- 
 cate) 00 
 
 For the registrar holding examinations or hearing appeals under 
 
 section 65 of the Act, per hour 2 00 
 
 Bailiff for serving petition, subpoena, order or other proceeding 
 
 including affidavit of service 3 00 
 
 Mileage both ways, per mile 20 
 
 Possession under a warrant for each day a man is actually in 
 
 possession 5 00 
 
 Xo fees shall be charged for searching any proceedings or docu- 
 ments required, under the Act or these Rules, to be filed 
 with the registrar 
 
INDEX 
 
 ABANDONMENT— 
 
 of appeal. See Appeal. 
 
 ABSCONDING— 
 
 absconding debtor may be arrested, 498. 
 an act of bankruptcy, 113. 
 service in case of, 653. 
 
 ABSENTING — 
 
 an act of bankruptcy, 113, 115. 
 
 ABSTRACT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS— 
 to be mailed to Dominion Statistician, 277. 
 to be mailed to every creditor, 384. 
 
 ABUSE OF PROCESS— 
 
 where debtor improperly uses process of court, 541. 
 
 ACCOMMODATION BILLS— 
 See Bills of Exchange. 
 
 ACCORD AND SATISFACTION, 135. 
 
 ACCOUNT— 
 
 stated, will not estop trustee, 488. 
 tariff for collection of accounts, 728. 
 
 ACT— 
 
 meaning of in Rules, 634. 
 
 ACT OF BANKRUPTCY— 
 
 available act of bankruptcy, 51, 123, 356. See Available Act of 
 
 Bankruptcy. 
 generally, 42. 
 intent in, 92, 95. 
 
 may revoke power of attorney, 92. 
 petition may be presented if debtor commits act of bankruptcy. 
 
 123. See Petition. 
 time when committeed, 61. 
 what are acts of bankruptcy — 
 
 absconding, departing, or remaining out of Canada, depart- 
 ing from dwelling house, absenting, keeping house, 113. 
 
 assigning, removing, secreting, etc., goods, 120. 
 
 assignment, 93, 172, 175. See Assignment. 
 
 fraudulent conveyance, 99. See Fraudulent Conveyance. 
 
 fraudulent preference, 111. See Fraudulent Preference. 
 
 execution unsatisfied, or sale of goods by sheriff, 117, 178, 
 190. 
 
 making bulk sale without complying with Provincial Act, 
 121. 
 
 statement showing insolvency, 120. 
 whether act of bankruptcy is void or voidable or unimpeachable, 
 
 90 seq., 96, 112, 118, 341. 
 
 ACTION. And see Proceedings, Stay of Proceedings, Jurisdiction, 
 Chose in Action. 
 absence of permission of inspectors no defence to action, 265. 
 See Defence. 
 
732 INDEX. 
 
 ACTION— Continued. . , . 
 
 actions on joint contracts, 583. 
 
 non-joinder of bankrupt, 583. 
 authorization by court to commence in certain cases, 582. 
 by or against firm, 583. 
 
 disclosure of names of members, 583. 
 dismissed with costs where summary proceedings should have 
 
 been taken, 663. 
 effect of election of trustee not to proceed with, 265. 
 for malicious arrest, 500. 
 form of order restraining action, 682. 
 in name of trustee and bankrupt's partner, 582. 
 
 notice to partner, 582. 
 
 release by partner void, 582. 
 no action against trustee for dividend,, 387. 
 not to be commenced after receiving order without leave, 151. 
 . permission of inspectors not necessary for leave to continue 
 
 action, 265. 
 rights of action passing to trustee, 69, 266, 290. See Property- 
 
 class actions, 298. 
 
 practice as regards plaintiffs and defendants, 298. 
 
 rights of action founded in contract, 295. 
 
 rights of action founded in tort, 296. 
 
 whether a cause of action may be split, 297.' 
 stay of on making of receiving order, 154, 160. 
 
 actions by secured creditors, 162. 
 
 actions in respect of non-provable debts, 163. 
 
 actions outside the jurisdiction, 163. 
 
 miscellaneous cases, 164. 
 
 ADDITIONAL SECURITY— 
 may be required, 231. 
 ■ released by discharge of trustee, 399. 
 
 ADDRESS— 
 
 for service of solicitor, 646. 
 
 ADEQUATE VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. See Valuable Con- 
 sideration. 
 
 ADJOURNMENT. See Meeting. 
 
 adjourned meeting to meet in same place, 661. 
 
 of meeting, 402. 
 
 of proceedings by court, 575. See Court. 
 
 ADJUDICATION. See Bankruptcy, Petition, Receiving Order, 
 Discharge. 
 conclusive, 148. 
 
 distinction between adjudication and receiving order, 140. 
 jurisdiction to make, 569. See Registrar. 
 of bankruptcy — • 
 
 court may annul adjudication in certain cases, 539, 541. 
 copy of order to be mailed to Dominion Statistician, 277. 
 effect of annulment generally, 544. 
 form of order, 720. 
 notice of order, 721. 
 
 notice of order to be gazetted and published, 540. 
 proceedings under adjudication validated, 540, 543. 
 property revests in debtor, 540. 
 when debts paid in full, 539, 545. 
 on default in payment of composition, 210, 224. 
 on failure of creditors to accept proposal, 208, 223. 
 on petition, 123, 655. See Petition. 
 
 ADJUSTMENT— 
 
 of rights as between contributories. See C'ontributories. 
 
INDEX. 733 
 
 ADMINISTRATION OF ACT— 
 
 Act to be administered by Minister of Justice, 632. 
 
 ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE— 
 
 costs of administration to be withheld where dividend declared, 
 - 384. 
 
 ADMINISTRATRIX— 
 
 who. carries on father's business liable to be made bankrupt, 598. 
 
 ADVANTAGE— 
 
 no advantage to be taken of any mistake, etc., 202. See Irregu- 
 larity. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. See Notice, Publication, Gazette. 
 
 ADVOCATES— 
 
 are made officers of such courts, 610. 
 may practice in any court, 610. 
 
 AFFIDAVIT. See Declaration Oath. 
 
 certificate where sworn by blind or illiterate person, 640. 
 
 court may accept affidavit evidence, 575. See Court, Evidence. 
 
 cross-examination on, 644. 
 
 defined, 49. 
 
 form and contents of, 640. 
 
 costs for unnecessary material, 640. 
 
 no interlineation unless authenticated, 640. 
 
 scandalous matter may be struck out, 640. 
 costs, 640. 
 formal defects in, 641. See Irregularities. 
 in support of order of committal, 706. 
 in support of application for committal, 707. 
 judicial notice of signature of person taking affidavit, 641. 
 of appointment of new trustee, 238, 242, 693. 
 of justification, 679. See Justification. 
 of service of petition, 674. 
 on behalf of corporation, 641. 
 on registration of r.o. and a.a., 181, 182, 199. 
 petition to be verified. by, 123, 674. 
 sworn before whom, 600. 
 
 not before solicitor of party. 641. 
 tariff of costs for, 724. 
 to be served with notice of motion, 638. 
 
 to be filed with registrar, 639. 
 
 AFFILIATION ORDER— 
 
 discharge of debtor does not affect, 532. See Debts. 
 
 AFFIRMATION, 49, 67. See Declaration, Affidavit. 
 
 AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY OF BANKRUPT. See Property, 
 Future Property, Business. 
 discharge subject to conditions with respect to after-acquired 
 property, 516, 517, 668. See Discharge. 
 debtor to attend for examination, 668. 
 debtor to give particulars of after-acquired property, 668. 
 on non-compliance court may rescind order, 668. 
 particulars verified by affidavit, 668. 
 in case of second bankruptcy, 375. And see Business. 
 intervention by trustee, 371, 375. 
 may belong to trustee, 537. 
 
 not brought in under a composition unless mentioned, 214. 
 vests in trustee under a receiving order, 33, 278, 312. 
 but in a qualifies sense, 291. 
 must be for value, 374. 
 transactions valid until intervention by trustee, 371. 
 
734 INDEX. 
 
 AGENT— 
 
 . examination of, 501. See Examination. 
 of company may be liable with company for offence, 631. 
 power to employ, 251, 266. 
 
 AGGRiHiVTED PERSON— 
 
 may appeal to court from decision of trustee, 394. See Appeal. 
 
 AID— 
 
 courts to act in aid of each other, aee Coubt. 
 
 ALIEN— 
 
 whether an alien can be made a bankrupt, 60. 
 
 ALIMENTARY DEBT, 50. 
 
 not affected by order of discharge, 532. See Debt. 
 
 "ALIMONY— 
 
 debt for not released "by discharge, 532. See Debt. 
 judgment for when registered, 199. 
 proof for, 420. 
 
 ALLOCATUR— 
 
 to be signed and dated by taxing officer, 647. 
 form of, 722. 
 
 ALLOWANCE— 
 
 for support of debtor, 272, 273. 
 
 to witness, tariff, 728. See Witness. 
 
 AMENDMENT— 
 
 of a.a. r.o., or proceedings where mistake, etc., 202. See Ieeegu- 
 
 larity. 
 of proceedings by court, 575. See Couet. 
 of valuation. See Sepueed Creditor. 
 
 ANNULMENT— 
 
 of adjudication. See Adjudication. 
 
 of receiving order. See Receiving Oeder. 
 
 ANTE-NUPTIAL SETTLEMENT. See Settlement. 
 
 APPARENT POSSESSION— 
 
 no reputed ownership clause in Act, 337. 
 
 APPEAL. See Re-hearing, Appeal Court. 
 abandonment of appeal, 596. 
 decision of appeal court final and conclusive, 589. 
 
 unless special leave for appeal to Supreme Court of Canada, 
 589, 596. 
 from decision of judge directed to try an issue, 584. 
 
 to Court of Appeal of the province, 651. 
 from decision of Registrar, 570. 650. See Registeae. 
 from disallowance of claim, 486. 
 
 jurisdiction of registrar. See Registear. 
 to judge, 662. 
 
 trustee not personally liable for costs, 662. 
 from order made on application for discharge of debtor, 666. See 
 
 Discharge. 
 from order made on application to approve composition, 658. 
 from order of the court or a judge, 589, 594, 650. 
 who may appeal, 593. 
 
 any person dissatisfied, 589. 
 
 procedure, 651. 
 
 security on appeal, 650. 
 
 time and notice of appeal, 650. 
 
 transmission of proceedings, 651. 
 
INDEX. 735 
 
 APPEAL — Con Untied. 
 
 whether appellant must have been represented below, 
 593. 
 right of appeal only in cases within the section, 589, 592, 594. 
 amount exceeds five hundred dollars, 589, 595. 
 from grant or refusal of a discharge, 524, 589. 
 from order for prosecution of debtor, 625. 
 from rehearing, 592. 
 future rights, 589, 595. 
 other cases of a similar nature, 589. 
 from re-hearing, 592. 
 
 to court from decision of trustee, 394, 486. 
 to Supreme Court of Canada. 
 
 application to be within thirty days, 651. 
 by special leave, 589, 596, 651. 
 not to operate as a stay, 589. 
 procedure, 651. 
 security for costs, 651. 
 trustee should not appeal from order allowing creditor to insti- 
 tute proceedings, 379. 
 where registrar refuses to make order it may be made on appeal, 
 160. 
 
 APPEAL COURT. See Appeal. 
 constituted, 546. 
 
 decision of final unless special leave to appeal, 589. 
 defined, 50. 
 exercise of powers by, 595. 
 
 APPLICATION. See Court. 
 to be by motion, 637. 
 
 to compel registration of receiving order or authorized assign- 
 ment, 183. 
 to court for directions, 249. 
 to court only after prior decision of body of persons in certain 
 
 cases, 611. 
 to set aside settlement, conveyance, etc., 663. 
 unopposed application. See Registrar. 
 
 APPOINTMENT. See Notice. 
 
 for examination of witness, 502, 666, 711. See Examination. 
 of new trustee where additional security not given, 231, 232. 
 
 See Trustee. 
 to settle order, 638. 
 
 APPROPRIATION— 
 
 of moneys on hand after notice of an act of bankruptcy, 144, 145. 
 
 ARBITRATION— 
 
 trustee may refer dispute to, 252. 
 
 ARRANGEMENT. See Composition. 
 
 ARREST— 
 
 action for malicious, 500. 
 
 debtor or witness' given into custody of Governor of Prison. 
 644, 645. 
 production of debtor or witness, 645. 
 discharge does not affect liability to, 536. 
 of debtor or witness, 502, 503, 512. 
 of debtors, 498 seq. 
 
 ASSETS— 
 
 failure to account for loss of assets. See Discharge. 
 not equal to fifty cents on dollar. See Disohabge. 
 
736 INDEX. 
 
 ASSIGN— 
 
 trustee may assign lease, 252. And see Lease. 
 
 • 
 ASSIGNMENT. See also Authorized Assignment, Contract," 
 
 Covenant, Settlement, Pledge, Mortgage. 
 a method of proceeding under the Act, 31. 
 assignment of goods with intent to defraud creditors an act 
 
 of bankruptcy, 120. 
 a revocable mandate, 175. 
 
 which may become an irrevocable trust, 175. 
 for benefit of named creditors may be fraudulent preference, 353. 
 includes conveyance, 50. 
 may be act of bankruptcy, 93, 175. 
 
 deed delivered as an escrow, 94. 
 
 estoppel of creditor who assents, 92, 97. 
 
 must be of whole of debtor's property, 93, 176. 
 
 must be for benefit of all creditors, 94. 
 
 intent in, 95. 
 
 validity of payments made under, 96. 
 
 whether creditor who assents can prove, 98. 
 of book debts. See Book Debts. 
 
 other than authorized assignment null and void, 168, 175 
 previous assignment a reason for refusal of discharge, 527. See 
 
 Discharge. 
 
 ASSIGNOR— 
 defined, 50. 
 
 ASSURANCE. See Insurance. 
 
 ATTACHMENT— 
 
 does not make creditor secured creditor, 81. 
 
 effect of in case of married woman, 64. 
 
 loses precedence to receiving order or authorized assignment, 
 
 178, 181, 183, 186 seq., 355. 
 no attachment of a dividend, 390. 
 
 ATTACHING ORDER— 
 
 contrasted with receiving order, 69. 
 
 ATTENDANCE. See Witness, Examination, Production, Subpoena. 
 tariff of costs for, 725. 
 
 ATTESTATION— 
 
 of affidavit on registration, 182. 
 
 ATTORNEY— 
 
 costs and fees of. See Costs. 
 
 AUCTION. See Auctioneer. 
 sale by, 251. 
 
 AUCTIONEER. See Auction. 
 
 may not purchase property, 258. 
 must be licensed, 259. 
 
 AUNT— 
 
 a restricted creditor, 450. 
 
 AUTHORIZED ASSIGNMENT. See Assignment. 
 as alternative to adjudication, 123, 135, 208. 
 
 whether the estate can best be administered under, 135. 
 amendment of, 202. 
 
 no advantage to be taken of mistakes in, 202. See Irregu- 
 larity. 
 annulment of on approval of composition, 211. 
 
IXDEX. 737 
 
 AUTHORIZED ASSIGNMENT— Continued. 
 
 avoidance of assignments other than authorized assignments, 
 
 168, 175, 176. 
 costs, charges and expenses of proceedings under to be paid, 
 
 393. See Costs. 
 defined, 50. 
 differs from receiving order, 153, 170. 
 
 may be avoided by subsequent receiving order, 153, 172. 
 whether trustee under may become a trustee de son 
 tort, 70, 172. 
 no relation back of title of trustee, 153, 172. 
 property vesting is less extensive, 153, 170. 
 for fraudulent purpose, 178. 
 form of, 168, 177, 682. 
 may be made, 168. 
 
 to be filed in court, 169. 
 to whom made, 174. 
 who may make, 174. 
 when a.a. may be made, 61, 174. 
 notice of to be gazetted and published, 179, 195. See Notice. 
 stay of proceedings on making of, 227. See Stat. 
 takes precedence over attachments, executions, etc., 178, 181, 
 183, 186, 355. 
 subject to attaching or execution creditor's bill of costs, 
 
 178. See Costs. 
 but in the case of land only after registration, 181, 183, 187. 
 registration to be in proper office, 180, 181. 
 affidavit on registration, 182. 
 application to compel registration, 183. 
 in same manner as lien or charge, 181. 
 omission to register not to invalidate, 183. 
 
 but title divested unless property indentified, 
 185. 
 penalty for refusing to register, 182. 
 reason for under American Acts, 198. 
 when made, 198. 
 vests property in trustee, 168, 171. See Property. 
 but title may be divested, 184, 195. See Title. 
 effect on insurance policy, 177. 
 not a " sale," 177. 
 not within the operation of any provincial law relating to 
 
 deeds, 179. 
 provincial laws to apply unless property identified in three 
 
 months, 184. 
 rights of innocent purchasers for value preserved, 183, 184, 
 185, 200, 201. 
 
 AUTHORIZED ASSIGNOR— 
 defined, 51. 
 
 AUTHORIZED TRUSTEE. See Trustee. 
 
 additional security may be required, 231, 237. 
 
 new trustee to be appointed if security not given, 231, 232. 
 
 application for appointment, 230, 233, 234. 
 
 appointment of, 230. 
 
 capacity of trustee acting in official name, 244. 
 
 can enter into engagements binding on himself and succes- 
 sors, 244. 
 
 can sue in his own name as well as official name, 245. 
 
 defined, 89. 
 
 general security to be given, 230, 231. See Security-. 
 amount, 231, 235. 
 to be kept in force 231. 
 
 limited jurisdiction, 230, 234. 
 
 but has power to act as such anywhere, 230. 
 
 official name of, 244. 
 
 B.C.— 47 
 
738 INDEX. 
 
 AUTHORITY— , 
 
 to sell property may make creditor a secured creditor, 87, 
 
 AUXILIARY— 
 
 courts to be auxiliary to each other. See Court. 
 
 AVAILABLE ACT OP BANKRUPTCY. See Act of Bankruptcy. 
 defined, 51. 
 
 effect of notice of in avoiding transactions, 356, 361, 363. 
 petition founded on, 123. 
 what is not, 166. 
 
 AVOIDANCE— 
 
 of assignments other than authorized assignments, 168, 175. 
 See Authorized Assignment. 
 procedure is under Rule 120, 177. 
 
 BAILIFF— 
 
 duty to serve documents, 646. 
 included in " sheriff," 88. 
 
 BANK. See Banker. 
 
 defined, 52. 
 
 must pay moneys to trustee though deposit receipt not pro- 
 duced, 159. 
 
 not included in " corporation," 53. 
 
 rights and privileges conferred by Bank Act not interfered 
 with, 611. 
 
 BANK ACT— 
 
 nothing in Bankruptcy Act to interfere with, 611. 
 
 referred to, 52. 
 
 wages a charge on security under, 465. 
 
 BANKER. See Bank. 
 defined, 52. 
 
 duty not to make any payments out of account, 372. 
 duty to notify trustee of account, 372. 
 transactions with after date of reoeiving order protected, 372. 
 
 BANKRUPT. See Bankruptcy, Debtor. 
 first considered a criminal, 30. 
 only a debtor can be made a bankrupt, 56. 
 wage-earners or persons engaged in farming or tilling the soil 
 cannot be made bankrupt, 56. 
 
 BANKRUPTCY— 
 
 annulled on approval of composition, 211. 
 
 distinguished from insolvency, 2. 
 
 districts'and divisions, 567. See Courts of Bankruptcy. 
 
 meaning of, 1 seq. 
 
 petition. See Petition. 
 
 previous bankruptcy a reason for refusal of discharge, 526. 
 
 See Discharge. 
 relates back to time oJ presentation of petition, 124. 
 referred to, 355, 357. 
 second bankruptcy, 375. See Second Bankruptcy. 
 
 BANKRUPTCY COURT. See Courts of Bankruptcy. 
 
 BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION. 
 
 in Canada after Confederation, 16-19. 
 
 in England, 29. 
 
 in Maritime Provinces, 4-5. 
 
 in Quebec. and Ontario, 6-11. 
 
 in Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory, 11-13. 
 
 in Vancouver Island and British Columbia, 14-15. 
 
1XDEX, -39 
 
 BANKRUPTCY OFFENCES. See Okfe>c*:n. 
 
 BARRISTERS— 
 
 .are made officers of such courts, 610. 
 may practise in any court, 610. 
 
 BILL OF COSTS— 
 
 to be furnished to trustee, 648. See Costs. 
 
 BILL OF EXCHANGE— 
 
 bill holder may only prove for residue of debt in certain cases, 
 
 425. 
 creditor secured by must deduct from proof for voting, 403. 
 creditor secured by must deliver up when he proves and when 
 
 he comes to receive a dividend, 409. 
 discharge under a composition of acceptor does not discharge 
 
 drawer, 226. 
 not a security on the property of the debtor, 79. 
 proof where bill security for larger sum than debt, 426. 
 proof where mutual accounts of dishonoured bills, 426. 
 when property in does not pass to trustee, 69. 
 
 BILL OF SALE— 
 
 choses in action including book debts not covered by certain 
 
 provincial Acts, 336, 337. See Book Derts. 
 position of second mortgagee where first bill not registered, 308. 
 position of trustee with respect to, 44. 
 
 BONA FIDES. See Good Faith. 
 
 BOND. See Security. Surety. 
 deposit in lieu of bond, 639. 
 
 notice of deposit, 639. 
 for release from arrest to be given to registrar, 501. 
 of trustee, 230, 231, 234, 235, 693. 
 
 offence of acting as trustee without bond, 629. See Offences. 
 on stay of proceedings, form of, 678. 
 security to be by, 639. 
 
 in penal sum, 639. 
 tariff of costs, 726. 
 
 BONDHOLDER— 
 
 a creditor of corporation, 54. 
 
 BOOK DEBTS. See Debts. 
 
 are choses in action, 336-, not covered by certain provincial Acts, 
 
 336, 337. 
 assignment of by partner, 84. 
 
 assignment of may be fraudulent preference, 353. 
 avoidance of general assignment of unless registered, :!34, 337. 
 
 saving assignment of specified debts, 335. 
 includes what, 259. 
 
 BOOKS— 
 
 concealment or destruction of books grounds for arrest of 
 
 debtor, 499. 
 duty of trustee to keep proper books, 276. 
 
 creditor may inspect, 276. 
 duty of trustee to dispose of on his discharge, 399. 
 failure to keep books of account considered on application for' 
 
 discharge. See Discharge. 
 no person entitled to withhold from trustee debtor's books of 
 account, 669. 
 
 no lien on them, 669. 
 offences in connection with books. See Offences. 
 
 concealing, destroying mutilating, falsifying any book, 613. 
 
 failure to deliver up books, 612, 617. 
 
 failing to keep proper books of account, 620. 
 
740 INDEX. 
 
 BOOKS — Continued. 
 
 offences in connection with — 
 
 making false entry in any book, 614. 
 
 preventing production of any book, 613. 
 production of books relating to debtor, 502. See Production. 
 right of trustee to inspect all books and documents, 669. 
 seizure of by warrant, 498. 
 
 seized under warrant to be delivered to trustee, 644. 
 subposna for production of, 641. 
 
 disobedience of a contempt of court, 643. 
 trustee to keep all books for six years after final dividend, 660, 
 399. 
 
 books to be produced as ordered by court, 660. 
 
 important . books to be kept for further period of fourteen 
 years, 660, 339. 
 trustee to take possession of, 245, 246. 
 
 BRIEF— 
 
 tariff of costs for, 725. 
 
 BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT 1. And see Constitutional Law. 
 
 BROTHER— 
 
 a restricted creditor, 450. 
 
 BUILDING SOCIETY— 
 
 having capital stock not included in " corporation," 53. 
 
 BULK SALES ACT— 
 
 non-compliance with may be act of bankruptcy, 121. * 
 
 BUSINESS. And see Trade, Undischarged Bankrupt. 
 
 bankrupt carrying on business with sanction of trustee, 272, 273. 
 new creditors entitled to priority over old, 273. 
 
 debtor may not assign profits of business accruing after bank- 
 ruptcy, 44. 
 
 may be carried on by interim receiver, 149. 
 
 may be carried on by committee pending investigation of pro- 
 posal, 205, 213. 
 
 may be carried on for beneficial winding up, 36, 261 seq. 
 
 may be carried on for winding up with permission of inspectors, 
 251. 
 
 right of trustee to prior payment of his obligations and advan- 
 ces, 317. 
 court may permit trustee to purchase, 318. 
 creditors or inspectors may limit the amount of obligations 
 
 and advances. 317. 
 if trustee not paid he may sell property, 317. 
 
 trustee not under obligation to continue business, 317. 
 
 undischarged bankrupt carrying on business, 375. 
 
 what constitutes carrying on business, 61, 66, 597. 
 
 what constitutes continuing to carry on business, 58, 61, 597. 
 
 CALLS. See Shares, Contributories. 
 
 no set-off against calls on shares, 322. See Set-off. 
 
 CANADA GAZETTE. See Gazette. 
 
 production of copy of is evidence of certain parts. See Evi- 
 dence. 
 
 CARRIAGE OF PROCEEDINGS— 
 change of by court, 576. 
 
 CERTIFICATE— 
 
 fee for certificate, 180. 
 
 of. discharge. See Discharge. 
 
INDEX. 74^ 
 
 CERTIFICATE— Continued. 
 of judgment — 
 
 receiving order and authorized assignment to take pre- 
 cedence over, 181, 183. 
 of taxing officer, 647, 722. 
 of true copy of receiving order or authorized assignment, 180. 
 
 CESSION DE BIENS, 10. 
 
 CESTUI QUE TRUST— 
 
 may prove in bankruptcy of trustee, 429. 
 
 CHAIRMAN.. See Meetings. 
 appointment of, 402. 
 may adjourn meeting, 402. 
 may admit or reject a proof, 403. 
 not required to take notes of debtor's examination, 406. 
 to caus& minutes to be kept, '402. 
 
 CHAMBERS— 
 
 all matters to be heard in. 635. 
 judge may exercise jurisdiction in chambers, 546. 
 jurisdiction of registrar over chamber matters, 569. See 
 Registrar. 
 
 CHARGES— 
 
 to be paid before debtor entitled to surplus, 393. 
 
 CHATTELS. See Goods. 
 included in goods, 63. 
 
 CHATTEL MORTGAGE ACTS— 
 
 position of trustee with respect to, 44. 
 
 trustee under void assignment cannot attack chattel mortgage. 
 177. 
 
 CHIEF JUSTICE— 
 
 to assign judge in certain cases. See Courts of Bankruptcy, 
 to appoint registrars, clerks and officers. See Courts of Bank- 
 ruptcy. 
 
 CHOSE IN ACTION — . See Action, Property. 
 book debts are choses in action, 336. 
 choses in action which pass to trustee, 69, 266, 290. See 
 
 Property. 
 rule of equity applicable in assignment of future chose in 
 
 action, 338. 
 trustee must complete title to, 41, 308, 338. 
 
 CLAIMS. See Debts Provable, Proof or Debts. 
 
 CLASS ACTION— 
 
 becomes defective when plaintiff becomes bankrupt, 298. 
 
 CLASS OF CREDITORS— 
 
 each class of creditors to express wishes separately, 54, 661. 
 
 CLERK— 
 
 a preferred creditor, 457. See Priority. 
 
 examination of, 502. See Examination. 
 
 refusing to act, guilty of contempt of court, 650. 
 
 to be appointed by Chief Justice for Court of Bankruptcy, 567. 
 
 COLLECTION OF ACCOUNTS— 
 tariff for, 728. 
 
 COMITY— 
 
 international, 71 seq. 
 
742 ixdex. 
 
 commencement of act— 
 
 when Act came into operation, 631. 
 
 COMMISSION— 
 
 a preferred claim, 457. See Priority. 
 court may take evidence by, 575. 
 form of, 643. 
 
 COMMITTAL. See Contempt. 
 
 affidavit in support of application for, 707. 
 
 affidavit in support of order of, 706. 
 
 notice of application for, 708. 
 
 order for, 708. 
 
 registrar has no jurisdiction, 570. See Registrar. 
 
 suspension of an order of committal, 645. 
 
 to convenient prison, 588. 
 
 under section 56 distinguished front committal under section 
 
 54, 512. 
 warrant for, 709. 
 
 COMMITTEE. See Inspectors. 
 
 court must await decision of in certain cases, 611. 
 to represent creditors in case of a composition proposal prior to 
 r.o. or a.a., 205. 
 changes in, 207. 
 costs of, 206. 
 powers of, 205 seq. 
 
 COMPANY. And see Corporation. Contributory. 
 Bankruptcy Act applicable to, 25. 
 included in " corporation," 53. 
 
 jurisdiction of Dominion and Provinces with respect to, 25, 27. 
 offence by — 
 
 officer, director, agent, personally liable, 631. See Offences. 
 sale of all debtor's property to company may be fraudulent 
 conveyance, 103. 
 
 COMPENSATION. See Wages, Salary. 
 a preferred claim, 457. See Priority. 
 a restricted claim in some cases, 449 seq. 
 
 COMPOSITION, EXTENSION OR SCHEME— 
 
 all parts of Act to apply to the composition, 211. 
 a method of proceeding under the Act, 31. 
 annulment of composition,. 659. 
 
 property re-vests in trustee, 659. 
 application to court for approval, 208, 219. 
 
 annulment of bankruptcy or assignment, 211. 
 application deemed an opposed application in certain cases, 
 658. 
 cannot be heard by Registrar, 569. 
 correction of formal slips, 659. 
 court to hear report of trustee, 209. 
 court to hear trustee, debtor, creditors, 658. 
 effect of approval, 209. '210, 223. 
 
 equivalent to discharge, 215, 223, 225, 226. 
 matters to be proved, 659. 
 notice of application mailed to debtor and creditors, 658, 
 
 689. 
 order appointing day for hearing, 689. 
 refusal or approval, 209, 216, 219 seq., 226, 530, 531. 
 appeal from order, 658. 
 form of order approving, 692. 
 form of order refusing, 692. 
 trustee may apply for debtor, 671. 
 trustee to file report, 658, 689. 
 
 where application refused no costs allowed debtor out of 
 estate, 658. 
 
IXDEX. 743 
 
 COMPOSITION. EXTENSION OR SCHEME— Continued. 
 assent or dissent of creditor to proposal, 208. 
 
 effect of acceptance, 211, 214. 
 
 motive of those voting, 216. 
 
 • form for resolution accepting composition, 687. 688. 
 composition in case of partnership, 215. 
 
 composition made after arrest may be fraudulent preference, 499. 
 distinguished from receiving order as regards property affected, 
 
 214. 
 distinguished from scheme, 213. 
 duty of trustee — 
 
 to report to the court, 209, 218. 
 
 to send out notice of meeting, etc., 204, form for, 684. 
 enforcement of provisions, 210, 224. 
 examination of debtor, 208. See Examination. 
 proposal for, 203 seq. 
 procedure to obtain consideration of, 203. 
 
 proposal, 204. 
 
 forms for, 658, 686. 
 
 time When proposal may be made, 215. 
 
 requisition, 20.3. 
 
 statement of affairs, 204. 
 promise made during composition to pay debt in full a fraud 
 
 on creditors, 539. 
 proof of debts under composition, 659. 
 
 creditor not entitled to enforce payment unless proved, 659. 
 provisions where proposal made before r.o. or a.a., 205. 
 
 appointment of committee, 205. See Committee. 
 
 authority to carry on the business, 205. 
 
 headings of documents, 207. 
 
 power to compromise claims. 205. 
 
 power to mortgage or pledge property, 206. 
 
 telegraphic proof Of debts, 207. 
 provisions with respect to bind Crown, 608. 
 statement of affairs to be pled, 658. 
 stay of proceedings pending consideration of proposal, 226. 
 
 on approval of proposal, 227. * 
 
 COMPROMISE— 
 
 of debts, etc., by committee pending investigation of proposal, 
 
 205. 
 trustee may compromise claims, etc., 252 269. 
 bankrupt cannot generally dispute. 270. 
 not duty of court to settle terms, 269. 
 
 COMPUTATION OP TIME. See Time. 
 
 CONCEALMENT— 
 
 of property ground for arrest of debtor, 499. 
 
 CONDITIONAL SALE OF GOODS— 
 
 position of trustee with respect to, 44. 
 
 CONDUCT MONEY. See Witness, Costs. 
 debtor entitled to in certain cases, 661. 
 on examination of witness, 502. 
 witness entitled to, 644. 
 
 CONSIGNMENT— 
 
 goods on. See Goods, Property. 
 
 CONSOLIDATION— 
 
 of proceedings, 576. See Court. 
 
744 INDEX. I 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. See British North America Act, Pro- 
 vincial Law. 
 
 avoidance of assignments other than authorized assignments, 
 176. 
 
 Bankruptcy Act superimposed on provincial law 27. 
 
 duties imposed on provincial officers, 179, 197. 
 
 generally, 22-28, 162. 
 
 imposition. of duties on judges of provincial courts 568. 
 
 jurisdiction of courts of bankruptcy. See Courts or Bank- 
 ruptcy. 
 
 legal principles applicable in interpreting federal enactment, 27. 
 
 power of court to commit for trial, 628. 
 
 receiving orders and authorized assignments not within pro- 
 vincial law, 179, 183, 184, 192. 
 
 CONTEMPT OP COURT. See Committal. 
 
 debtor failing to perform duties imposed on him, 492. 
 
 order for discharge from custody on contempt, 709. 
 
 person untruthfully stating he is creditor, 492. 
 
 registrar; clerk, etc., refusing to act guilty of contempt, 650. 
 
 registrar has no jurisdiction, 570. See Registrar. 
 
 suspension of an order of committal, 645. 
 
 CONTINGENT CHARGE 84. 
 
 CONTINGENT CLAIMS— 
 
 may be valued, 414, 419. See Debts Provable. 
 procedure, 662. 
 
 CONTINUING TO TRADE. See Business. 
 when insolvent. See Discharge. 
 
 CONTRACT. See also. Covenant, Settlement. 
 
 disclaimer of onerous contracts or property, 304. See Dis- 
 claimer. 
 
 for future payment of money avoided in certain cases, 326, 334. 
 
 position of trustee who completes contract with own money, 305. 
 
 protected in certain cases, 355 seq., 367. 
 
 rights of trustee under contracts with bankrupt, 70, 295 seq., 
 301, 313. See Property. 
 contracts not necessarily terminated by bankruptcy, 301. 
 rights of action founded in contract, 295. 
 
 CONTRIBUTORY. See Calls and Company. 
 amount of liability, 380. 
 
 application to court by contributory for adjustment of rights of 
 contributories, 382, 665, 695. 
 
 affidavit in support, 696. 
 
 security to be furnished, 382. 
 denned, 634. 
 demand on contributory, 381. 
 
 application to court for judgment, 694. 
 
 court may stay issuing of execution, 664. 
 disposition of matter by court, 664. 
 
 form of, 663, 694. 
 
 judgment by default, 664. 
 
 notice of disputed liability, 381. 
 
 service of demand, 381. 
 excessive or unjust demand, 382. • 
 
 costs where grossly excessive demand, 382. 
 liability on transferred shares, 380. 
 
 is deemed an asset and a debt, 381. 
 proceedings for recovery of amount due, 381. 
 remuneration, expenses and costs against contributories, 382. 
 
 of trustee to be fixed by court, 396. See Remuneration. 
 shareholders liable to contribute, 380. 
 trustee not required to make demands on pro rata basis, 663. 
 
 not required to adjust rights as between contributories, 664. 
 
INDEX. 745 
 
 CONVEYANCE. See also Assignment, Contract, Covenant. Mort- 
 gage, Pledge, Settlement, Fraudulent Conveyance. 
 application to set aside to be to judge in chambers, 663. 
 following proceeds of void conveyance, 368. 
 included in " assignment," 50. 
 included in " settlement," 328. 
 may be a fraudulent preference, 339. 
 protected in certain cases, 355 seq. 
 
 CONVICT— 
 
 may be made a bankrupt, 60. 
 
 COPY— 
 
 of receiving order or authorized assignment, 180. 
 of documents in possession of trustee, 277. 
 of proceedings may be evidence. See Evidence. 
 tariff of costs Tor, 725. 
 
 COPYRIGHTED WORK— 
 
 may be sold by trustee, 250. 
 
 CO-RESPONDENT— 
 
 judgment against not released by order of discharge. See Debt. 
 
 CORPORATION. See also Company. 
 
 affidavit on behalf of made by manager, officer or employee, 641. 
 
 application of Winding-up Act to, 55, 60. 
 
 creditor of with relation to meeting of, 53. 
 
 defined, 53. 
 
 included in " person," 67. 
 
 may vote, 404. 
 
 may act by officers, or employees duly authorized, 607. 
 
 personal service on corporation, how affected, 654. 
 
 restricted creditors in the case of, 450. 
 
 statement of affairs by, 658. See Statement of Affairs. 
 
 COSTS. See also Security for Costs, Taxation, Remuneration, 
 
 Conduct Money, Disbursements, Expenses. 
 action dismissed with costs where summary proceedings should 
 
 have been taken, 663. 
 and expenses of sale of security, 436. 
 and fees of attorneys, solicitors and counsel, 573. 
 
 aggregate amount not to exceed five per cent, in certain 
 cases, 573. 
 may be raised to ten per cent, in certain cases, 573. 
 
 as per tariff provided by' general rules, 573, 648, 724 seq. 
 
 lower scale in certain cases, 574, 648. 
 
 to be paid out of estate, 573. 
 and fees payable by persons other than the trustee, 573. 
 and fees of officers of the court, 574. 
 
 tariff of, 729. 
 application by solicitor for payment of, 269. 
 bill of to toe furnished to trustee, 648. 
 costs of an opposed motion follow the event, 647. 
 oosts to be based on production of a copy of the order, 647. 
 costs out of joint and separate estates, 648. 
 court may direct taxation and payment as between party and 
 
 party or solicitor and client, 646. 
 
 may direct payment of a sum in lieu of taxed costs, 646. 
 debtor not entitled to when composition not approved, 658. 
 debtor not entitled to costs out of estate on application for 
 
 discharge, 667. 
 debtor who does not apply for discharge before payment of final 
 
 dividend to pay remuneration to trustee, 667. 
 in contributory cases, 382. 
 
 inspectors may limit amount of costs to be incurred, 267. 
 notice of appointment to tax costs, 648. See Notice. 
 
746 INDEX. 
 
 COSTS— Continued. 
 
 of committee appointed to investigate proposal, 206. 
 of trustee pending investigation of proposal, 206. See Re- 
 muneration. 
 of the attaching or execution creditor, a preferred claim, 178, 
 
 457. 
 of the examination of a person examined, 503. 
 of proceedings in discretion of court, 575, 577. 
 
 when to be paid by trustee personally, 577. 
 of administration to be retained where dividend declared, 384. 
 
 and where preferred debts paid 457. 
 of application where trustee ordered to pay dividend, 387. 
 only those costs payable out of the estate which are authorized, 
 
 649. 
 petitioning creditor entitled to costs, 647. 
 
 court may order payment by creditor in certain cases, 647. 
 proof for, rules as to, 427. 
 security for. See Security fob Costs'.' 
 solicitor's lien for costs, 268. See Lien. 
 tariff of costs to apply, 648. 
 
 tariff of, 724 seq. 
 taxation of costs. See Taxation. 
 to be paid before debtor entitled to surplus, 393. 
 trustee not personally liable for costs unless judge directs 647. 
 
 not personally liable for costs on appeal from disallowance 
 of claim, 662. 
 trustee personally liable to solicitor for costs, 268. 
 where trustee takes or carries on proceedings, 263. 
 where debtor fails in motion to expunge, 490. 
 where amount of costs to be incurred is limited, 574. 
 where creditor takes proceedings on refusal of trustee, 376, 379. 
 where order obtained for prosecution of debtor 626. 
 where affidavit contains unnecessary or scandalous matter, 640. 
 where more prolix forms used, 635. 
 of witnesses allowed whether examined or not, 642. 
 
 number allowed on taxation may be limited, 642. 
 
 CO-TRUSTEE— 
 
 not released by discharge of other trustee, 532. 
 
 COUNSEL— 
 
 may attend for creditor, trustee, debtor on application for dis- 
 charge, 530. 
 fees and. costs of, tariff for, 727. And see Costs. 
 
 COUNTER-CLAIM — 
 
 difference between counter-claim and set-off, 321. 
 
 COUNTY— 
 
 county judge may be appointed, 567. 
 
 COURT. See Courts of Bankruptcy; Jurisdiction, Application. 
 application for directions to, 249. 
 application to stop sale, 260, 261. 
 appeal to from decision of trustee, 394.. 
 appeal from decision of. See Appeal. 
 
 not to stay proceedings unless ordered, 589. 
 auxiliary to one another, 76, 584, 585, 586. 
 
 only courts of bankruptcy can be auxiliary to one another, 
 .586. 
 authorized assignment filed in, 169. 
 delegation of powers to officer of court, 587. 
 defined, 53, 634. 
 
 discretion of on application for discharge, 519. See Discharge. 
 jurisdiction of court may be exercised in chambers, 546. 
 
INDEX. 747 
 
 COURT— Oontin lied. 
 
 all matters to be heard in chambers, unless otherwise 
 
 ordered, 635. 
 appoint interim receiver, 149; 
 direct trial of issue by another court, 584. 
 appeal from decision of such court, 584. 
 but may not direct another court to do its work, 5.86. 
 discharge trustee, 398. See Discharge. 
 extend time for proof, 38C. 
 
 order Iperson who admits debt to pay same to trustee, 503. 
 order person who has debtor's property to deliver same to 
 
 trustee, 504. 
 permit creditor to institute proceedings, 376. 
 review rescind or vary any order, 589, 625. See Receiving 
 Order. 
 appeal from re-hearing, 592. 
 
 who may appeal, 593. 
 circumstances under which court will rehear, 591. 
 ex parte orders, 591. 
 order refusing discharge, 592. 
 receiving order, 592. 
 only the court which made order may review, rescind 
 or vary, 590. 
 may order prosecution of debtor for offences. See Offences. 
 commit debtor for trial. See Offences. 
 may take depositions, bind over witnesses, admit to bail. 
 See Offences. 
 meaning of " the court or a judge," 594. 
 new trustee under authorized assignment to give notice to 
 
 court of his appointment, 169. See Tki'Stee. 
 orders made by wrong court, 159. 
 orders of court enforced throughout Canada, 584, 585, 587. 
 
 procedure to enforce, 585. 
 order of court seeking aid confers jurisdiction, 584, 585. 
 petition presented to, 123. 
 
 power to remove substitute or appoint trustees, 232, 238, 240. 
 a judicial discretion, 240. 
 to adjourn proceedings, 575, 578. 
 to amend, 202, 575, 578. 
 
 to consolidate proceedings, 576, 579, 581, 582. 
 to change carriage of proceedings, 576," 580. 
 to dismiss petition, 576. 
 
 as against one or more respondents, 580. 
 to extend time, 575, 578. 
 to stay proceedings, 576. 
 with respect to evidence, 575, 579. 
 powers in case of proposal for composition, etc., 206, 208 seq. 
 retains jurisdiction over trustee after discharge, 400. 
 
 and over debtor, 496. 
 rules governing payment into. 640. 
 to act in aid of one another, 28. 
 
 to await prior decision of body of persons in certain cases, 611. 
 transfer of proceedings to .Droper court, 124. 
 to another disttrict or division, 152. 
 
 COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY. See Coxrt. 
 
 chief justice to appoint registrars, etc., 567, 568. 
 created, -546. 
 
 each province to constitute one bankruptcy district, 567. 
 one judge for each division, 567. 
 province may be divided into divisions, 567. 
 jurisdiction of — 
 
 at law and in equity, original auxiliary and ancillary, 546, 
 558 559. 
 extent of jurisdiction, 549, 552, 553, 558. 
 constitutional auestions, 554. 
 creditors, 550, 551. 
 
748 INDEX. 
 
 COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY— Continued. 
 
 secured creditors, 550, 557, 558. 
 strangers, 550, 551, 555. 
 
 whether jurisdiction concurrent or exclusive. 556. 
 discretional exercise of jurisdiction conferred, 563. 
 decisions in different provinces, 565. 
 exercise of jurisdiction, 564. 
 refusal to exercise jurisdiction, 565. 
 territorial limitation to jurisdiction, 560. 
 i limits to exercise of extra-territorial - jurisdiction, 
 
 562. 
 negative extra-territorial jurisdiction, 561. 
 positive entra-territorial jurisdiction, 560, 561. 
 jurisdiction to be exercised by an assigned judge, 566. 
 judge to be assigned by Minister of Justice, 566, 567. 
 or in certain cases by chief justice, 566, 567. 
 not subject to restraint by any other court, 566. 
 
 irregularity in process or proceedings to be, set right by 
 bankruptcy court itself, 568. 
 sittings, 566, 649. 
 
 COURT OF APPEAL. See Appeal Coukt. 
 
 COVENANT. See also Assignment, Contract, Settlement. 
 
 for future payment of money avoided in certain cases, 326, 334. 
 to assure effect of discharge on, 536. 
 
 CREDIT. See Offences. 
 
 being undischarged and obtaining credit, 618. 
 
 false statement with respect to financial condition. 615. 
 
 offence of fraudulently obtaining property on credit, 614, 617. 
 
 offence of fraudulently obtaining credit, 615, 617, 618. 
 
 offences of pawning, pledging, disposing of property obtained on 
 
 credit, 615, 617, 618. 
 taking advantage of false statement respecting credit, 616. 
 
 CREDITOR AND CREDITORS. See Secured Creditor, Petitioning 
 Creditor, Restricted Creditor^ 
 denned with relation to meeting of corporation, 53. 
 in rules, 634. 
 
 with relation to fraudulent preference, 339, 355. 
 includes surety or guarantor, 339, 355. 
 each class of creditors to express wishes separately, 54, 661. 
 has right to inspect trustees' books, 276. 
 
 to require trustee to report to him, 276. 
 have right to determine who shall be trustee on making of 
 
 receiving order, 152. 
 jurisdiction over. See Courts op Bankruptcy. 
 may apply to have proceedings transferred to another court, 
 152. 
 appeal to court from decision of trustee, 394, 396. See. 
 
 Appeal. 
 apply to court for amendment of authorized assignment if 
 
 any mistake, 202. See Irregularity. 
 apply for order directing trustee to expunge or reduce 
 
 proof, 486. 
 attend with counsel on application for discharge. See 
 
 Discharge. 
 direct trustee not to take proceedings, 376. 
 direct trustee to disallow claim, 486. 
 fix remuneration of trustee, 396. 
 
 once fixed cannot be altered to trustee's detriment, 397. 
 inspect personally or by agent statement of affairs, 492. 
 obtain order for prosecution of debtor. See Offences. . 
 revoke appointment of inspector and appoint another, 410. 
 speed completion of process. 187. 
 to have r.o. or a.a. registered, 183. 
 
INDEX. 749 
 
 CREDITOR AND CREDITORS— Continued. 
 
 may apply to have receiving order or authorized assignment 
 
 registered, 183. 
 
 waive taxation of trustee's disbursements, 396. 
 meetings of. See Meetings. 
 new creditors entitled to priority where debtor carries on 
 
 J business for trustee, 273. 
 offence of making false claim, 623. See Offences. 
 only creditor who has proved entitled to notice of subsequent 
 
 meetings. 401. 
 
 or to vote, 402. 
 penalty for untruthful statement that a creditor, 492. See 
 
 Offences. 
 position of creditors who have assented to a void deed, 173. 
 
 See Estoppel. 
 rights of may depend on provincial law, 54. See Provincial 
 
 Law. 
 right to follow proceeds of property, 370. See Proceeds. 
 
 to object to payment of dividend, 384. 
 
 to take proceedings in name of trustee, 376. 
 costs, 376, 379. See Costs. 
 relief obtainable, 3~78. 
 resolution for examination of debtor and others, 502. 
 
 whether single creditor can apply for, 510. 
 resolution for production of books, documents, etc., 503. 
 single creditor cannot invoke doctrine of fraudulent preference, 
 
 342. 
 settlement of claims of creditors to rank against estate, 384, 386. 
 twenty-five per cent, of creditors may request trustee to call 
 
 meeting, 401. 
 to appoint inspectors, 410. See Inspectors. 
 to prove debt as soon as may be, 431. , 
 who has proved entitled to dividend, 384. See Dividend. 
 who has proved may examine proofs of other creditors, 433 . 
 
 CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS— 
 
 discharge does not release debtor from liability to, 626. 627, 536. 
 
 CROSS-EXAMINATION— 
 
 right to cross-examine on affidavit, 644. 
 
 CROWN. See Taxes. 
 
 bound by provisions of act with respect to — 
 
 composition, 608. 
 
 discharge, 608. 
 
 priorities of debts, 608. 
 not bound unless mentioned, 609. 
 rights when not bound, 609. 
 rights of Crown as lessor, 610. 
 
 DAMAGES— 
 
 where interim receiver appointed and petition dismissed, 654. 
 
 DAMNOSA ILEREDITAS. See Disclaimer. 
 
 trustee's position compared with executor's, 485. 
 
 DAUGHTER— 
 
 a restricted creditor, 450. 
 
 DAT- 
 reckoning of days, 670. And see Time. 
 
 DEATH— 
 
 of debtor, proceedings continued, 576. See Proceedings. 
 
 of debtor or witness, deposition made evidence by seal of court, 
 
 601. See Evidence. 
 of debtor, service of petition on personal representatives, 654. 
 
750 IXDEX. 
 
 DEBENTURE HOLDER— 
 
 a. creditor of a corporation, 54. 
 
 DEBT. See Book Debts, Garnishments. 
 alimentary debt, 50, 532. 
 
 for necessaries or maintenance, 50, 532. 
 all other debts provable in "bankruptcy released by . discharge, • 
 
 532. 
 assignment of future debts, 83. 
 as a condition precedent to petition, 123. 
 
 debt evidenced by a judgment, etc., before coming into 
 
 operation of the Act, 166. 
 debt which was contracted or existed before the coming 
 
 into operation of the Act, 166. 
 proof of debt at hearing or at subsequent trial, 123, 124, 132, 
 655. 
 inquiry into validity of debt, 133. 
 a judgment not conclusive, 133. 
 purchase of debt for purpose of petition, 132. 
 purchase of debt, 131. 
 
 whether debt " owing " means " presently payable," 129, 139. 
 whether debt must be liquidated sum, 130. 
 debts provable. See Proof of Debts. 
 debts not provable, 414. 
 
 claims contrary to general policy of the law, 416. 
 
 claims excluded by statute, 417. 
 
 claims barred by Statute of Limitations, 429, 489. 
 
 no privity of contract, 429. 
 creditors to a composition deed, 489. 
 debts of restricted creditors, 449, 452. 
 debts proved in a previous bankruptcy, 489. 
 secured creditors, 489. See Secured Creditors! 
 defined, 54, 414, 421. 
 
 contingent claims, 414, 419 ,420, 662. 
 
 costs, 427. 
 
 debts and liabilities accruing after receiving order, 429, 
 
 456. 
 interest. See Interest. 
 penalty, 428. 
 claim for damages as an overholding tenant, 482-3. 
 court may expunge or reduce a proof on application of 
 creditor or debtor, 486, 490. 
 costs where debtor fails in motion to expunge, 490. 
 effect of admission of debt in statement of affairs, 495. 
 right of action for breach of covenant to pay rent, 484-5. 
 trustee to examine proof and grounds of debt, 485. 
 
 may disallow claim in whole or in part, 486; form of 
 notice of, 702. 
 must not disallow because of collateral dispute, 488. 
 resolution of creditors and inspectors, 486. 
 
 appeal from disallowance, 486, 490, 662. 
 disallowance within a reasonable time, 487. 
 may require further evidence, 485, 488. 
 
 judgment and estoppel not conclusive, 488. 
 may set aside reserve to meet claim, 489. 
 debts not released by. order of discharge, 532, 535. 
 debts due Crown and public debts, 532. 
 fraud or fraudulent breach of trust, 532, 538. 
 necessaries of life, 532. 
 partner, co-trustee or surety. 532. 
 
 seduction, affiliation order, alimony, co-respondent, 532. 
 debts paid in full, adjudication annulled. See Adjudication. 
 promise to pay statute barred debt 538. 
 
 promise made during composition proceedings to pay debt in 
 full, 539. 
 
I XL) EX. ; 51 
 
 DEBTOR. See also Bankrupt. Relation Back. 
 arrest of, 498 seq. 
 . arrested under section 55 to be given into custody of governor 
 
 of prison, 644. 
 arrested under section 58 (2) to be brought before court, 645. 
 attending meeting of creditors entitled to conduct money and 
 
 expenses in certain cases, G61. See Witness. 
 carrying on business, 55, 61. 
 defined, 54. 
 
 death of before service of petition, 654. 
 duty of — 
 
 aid to the utmost of his power, 493, 496. 
 penalty for failure to perform duties, 493, 497. 
 to attend first meeting, 492. 
 
 to submit to examination at, 492, 495. See EXAMINA- 
 TION. 
 
 to submit statement of affairs, 492. See Statement of 
 Affairs. 
 
 to submit to examination generally, 493. See Examination. 
 deposition of debtor made evidence after death by seal of court. 
 
 601. 
 entitled to surplus, 282, 393. 
 examination of, 502. See Examination. 
 examination of debtor who has conditional discharge as to 
 
 after-acquired property, 668. 
 incapacity of by reason of relation back of title of trustee, 143. 
 incapacity of after making of receiving order, 158. 
 incapacity of in making settlements of property, 326. 
 may apply to have, r.o. or a.a. registered, 183. 
 may not encumber profits of his business, 282. 
 may not limit property to himself defeasible on bankruptcy, 41, 
 
 286, 330. 
 may appeal to court from decision of trustee, 394, 395. 
 may apply to court to direct trustee to expunge or reduce a 
 
 proof, 486, 490. 
 
 costs where debtor's motion fails, 490. 
 may attend with counsel on application for discharge. See 
 
 Discharge. 
 no locus standi to dispute compromise, 270. 
 
 or on appeal from rejection of proof, 409. 
 
 or to intervene until a surplus, 281, 394, 395. 
 only a debtor can be made a bankrupt, 56. 
 
 convicts, 60. 
 .corporation. 60. 
 
 foreigner, 60. 
 
 Indians, 56, 59. 
 
 infants, 56. 
 
 lunatics, 59. 
 
 women, 57. 
 place of residence of, 55, 61, 62. 
 
 proceedings continued on death of, 576. See Proceedings. 
 production of debtor by governor of prison, 645. 
 right of debtor to attend taxation, 269. 
 
 DECLARATION. See Affidavit. 
 by shorthand writer, 712. 
 included in " affidavit," 49. 
 included in " oath," 67. 
 
 DEFECT. See Irregi-i.arity. 
 
 DEFENCE— 
 
 absence of permission of inspectors no defence to action. 26a. 
 267, 270. 
 
 DEFINITION OF TERMS, 49 seq.. 634-5. 
 
752 INDEX. 
 
 DELIVERY— 
 
 protected in certain cases, 355 seq., 366. 
 
 DEMAND— 
 
 on contributory. See Contributory. 
 tariff of costs for, 725. 
 
 DEPARTING OUT OF CANADA OR FROM DWELLING HOUSE— 
 an act of bankruptcy, 113, 115. 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE— 
 duty of trustee to send reports to, 277. 
 
 DEPOSITION— 
 
 may be ordered to be given in evidence, 642. See Evidence. 
 
 DIRECTIONS— 
 
 application to court for, 249. 
 
 DIRECTOR— 
 
 a restricted creditor -with respect to wages, 450. 
 
 examination of, 502. See Examination. 
 
 may be liable with company for offence, 631. 
 
 proceedings against, 663. 
 
 power to act for company, 607, 608. 
 
 may make assignment for benefit of creditors, 608. 
 
 DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS. See Debt. 
 
 DISBURSEMENTS. See Costs, Expenses. 
 of trustee to be taxed unless waived, 396. 
 of sheriff a preferred claim, 457. 
 
 DISCHARGE. And see Composition, Adjudication. 
 
 application for discharge of debtor, 515, 518, form 713. 
 appeals from order 524, 666. See Appeal. 
 application for modification of terms of order, 518, 524, 668. 
 date of order, 667. 
 
 debtor and creditor may attend with counsel, 530. 
 debtor not entitled to costs out of estate on application, 667. 
 notice to creditors, 515, 714. 
 notice to trustee, 516, 714. 
 
 order not given, out until after time allowed for appeal, 667. 
 powers of the court — 
 
 a judicial discretion, 519. 
 may grant discharge, 516. 
 
 form for, 715. 
 may grant discharge subject to conditions, 516, 667. 
 form for, 717. 
 
 debtor to account for after-acquired property, 668. 
 'affidavit of debtor with respect to after-acquired 
 
 property, 720. 
 on failure to verify statement of after-acquired 
 property, court may rescind order, 668. 
 execution not to issue on consent judgment without 
 
 leave, 517, 667. 
 form for consent of debtor, '719. 
 if debtor does not give required consent order 
 
 revoked, 667. 
 judgment to be entered pursuant to consent, 
 with respect to after-acquired' property, 516, 537. 
 with respect to consent judgment, form for, 718. 
 with respect to earnings or income, 516. 
 form for, 717. 
 may refuse discharge, 516. 
 
 form for, 715. 
 may suspend operation of order, 516. 
 form for, 716. 
 
INDEX. 753 
 
 DISCHARGE— Continued. 
 
 - order where only facts proved that assets not equal 
 to fifty cents on dollar, 717. 
 powers ot retusing and suspending may be exercised 
 
 concurrently, 530, 531. 
 shall refuse discharge, 517. 
 
 where bankrupt has committed any offence, 517, 
 519, 521. 
 unless special reasons exist, 520. 
 shall refuse or suspend or grant a conditional dis- 
 charge on proof of certain facts, 517, 522, 525, 
 526. 
 assets not fifty cents on dollar, 525, 527. 
 
 when deemed equal to fifty cents, 529. 
 contributed to bankruptcy by rash speculations, 
 
 525, 528. 
 discharge subject to entering judgment, 517, 523. 
 failed to account satisfactorily for loss of assets, 
 
 525. 
 fraud or fraudulent breach of trust, 526. 
 fraudulent settlement or marriage contract, 530, 
 
 531. 
 frivolous or vexatious action, 525. 
 has given an undue preference, 526, 529. 
 has put creditors to unnecessary expense. 525, 528 
 incurring liability to make assets equal to fifty 
 
 cents, 526. 
 no books of account, 525, 527. 
 previous bankruptcy or assignment, 526. 
 suspension till a dividend .of 50 cents paid, 517, 522. 
 suspension for two years, 517. 
 trading after insolvent, 525, 528. 
 when registrar may not hear, 666. 
 remuneration of trustee when application after final 
 
 dividend, 667. 
 review of order, 592. See Court. 
 trustee to file report, 516. 
 
 creditor opposing discharge on grounds not in report, 
 
 667. 
 debtor disputing statement in report, 666. 
 examination may be read and debtor further examined, 
 
 530, 666. 
 examination to be filed, 516. 
 
 certificate of, 530. 
 
 form of, 721. 
 
 statutory disqualifications to cease, 530, 531. 
 defined, 62. 
 effect of discharge — 
 
 discharge voidable, 534. 
 
 debts released. See Debts. 
 
 debts not released. See Debts. 
 
 partner, surety, co-trustee not released. 532. 
 
 license to seize or covenant to assure, 536. 
 
 liability to criminal arrest, 536. 
 
 liability to criminal proceedings. 626. 
 
 property received after discharge, 537. 
 
 promise after discharge to pay barred debt, 538. 
 
 promise during composition proceedings to pay in full, 539. 
 foreign discharge, 536. 
 generally, 38. 
 
 jurisdiction of registrar on application for. See Registrar. 
 notice of order of discharge, 533, 721. 
 obligation to aid trustee exists after discharge of debtor, 496. 
 
 b.c— 48 
 
154 IXDEX 
 
 DI SOH ARGE— Continued. 
 of trustee — 
 
 application for, 659. 
 
 affidavit verifying, 698. 
 form and contents of application, 659, 697. 
 notice of application to debtor and creditors, 659. 
 opposition to application, 660. 
 
 opposed application heard by judge, 660. 
 on full administration, 398. 
 on substitution of new trustee, 399. 
 two years after final dividend, 399. 
 court retains jurisdiction notwithstanding discharge, 400. 
 disposal of bdoks and papers on, 399, 660. 
 no release from consequence of fraud or breach of trust, 399. 
 not released by discharge of co-trustee, 532. 
 order discharging, 698. 
 releases special security, 399. 
 order for discharge from custody on contempt, 709. 
 order of to be mailed to Dominion Statistician, 277. 
 order of discharge conclusive evidence, 533, 534. See Evidence. 
 provisions with respect to bind. Crown, 609. 
 remuneration of trustee on debtor's application for discharge, 
 396. See Remuneration. 
 
 DISCLAIM— 
 
 disclaimer of onerous contracts and property, 304, 485. 
 
 trustee's position as regards damnosa haereditas, 485. 
 form of notice of disclaimer, 701. 
 on disclaimer under lessee may take head lease, 475. 
 trustee may disclaim lease, 252, 474, 473. 
 
 entry into possession not deemed an election, 474. 
 
 liability of trustee for rent to cease. 474, 485. 
 trustee may surrender possession, 473, 482. 
 
 DISCOUNT— 
 
 what discounts to be deducted on proof, 433. . 
 
 DISCOVERY. And see Production. 
 
 any party entitled to discovery of documents, 64.4. See Docu- 
 ments. 
 
 any party entitled to examination for discovery, 644. See 
 Examination. 
 
 offence of not discovering property to trustee, 612, 616, 617. See 
 Offences. 
 
 DISCRETION— 
 
 of court on application for discharge, 519. See Discharge. 
 
 DISMISSAL— 
 
 disposing of goods with intent -to defraud creditors may be act 
 
 of bankruptcy, 120. 
 of petition. See Petition. 
 
 DISSOLUTION— 
 of partnership — 
 
 parties to action in case of 583, 584. 
 
 DISQUALIFICATION— 
 
 to cease. See Discharge. 
 
 DISTRESS. See also Landlord and Lease. 
 landlord's right to cease, 472, 479. 
 
 but only when in competition with general body of credi- 
 tors, 477, 480. 
 cases to which section does not apply, 479. 
 rights given landlord in return, 480. 
 
INDEX. :55 
 
 DISTRICT— 
 
 bankruptcy districts, 567. See Counts of Ba.nkruj'tcy 
 judge may be appointed, 567. 
 
 DIVIDEND— 
 
 contribution by creditor before dividend payable, 392. 
 dividend to be paid to creditors whose proved debts not objected 
 to, 384, 38<9. 
 
 after retention of costs of administration, 384. 
 
 duty of trustee to settle claims of creditors, 386. Se« 
 Debts. 
 
 right of creditor to prove at any time, 384. 
 
 right of secured creditor to prove, 391. See Proof. 
 dividend sheet to be mailed to Dominion Statistician, 277. 
 
 and statement on which final dividend is declared, 277. 
 effect of acceptance of dividend, 392. 
 final dividend, 386. 
 
 final dividend sheet, 384. 
 
 notice of final dividend, 385, 390, 697. 
 
 assets making possible further dividend, 387. 
 division and distribution of estate, 386. 
 failure to prove excludes creditors from share in divi- 
 dend, 386. 
 from payment of dividend no promise to pay balance can be 
 
 inferred, 156. 
 generally, 37. 
 no action for dividend, 387, 391. 
 
 interest and costs where" dividend withheld, 387. 
 not liable to be attached, 389. 
 not payable to restricted creditors until others fully paid, 
 
 449 seq. 
 notice of dividend notification of admission of claim, 662. 
 on joint and separate properties, 385, 391. 
 payment to Receiver-General of unpaid dividends, 386. 
 pooling assets in Canada and abroad, 390. 
 set-off in case of dividend, 392. 
 trustee to declare dividends with all convenient speed, 384. 
 
 first dividend within six months, 384. 
 
 further dividends whenever ten per cent, on hand, 384. 
 
 DIVISION— 
 
 bankruptcy division, 567. See Courts of Bankruptcy. 
 
 DOCUMENTS. And see Books. 
 
 any party entitled to discovery of, 644. 
 
 concealment or destruction of ground for arrest of debtor, 499. 
 court may order attendance of any person for production of 
 documents, 643. 
 failure to attend a contempt of court, 643. , 
 
 offences in connection with documents — 
 
 concealing, destroying, mutilating, falsifying any docu- 
 ment, 613. 
 failure to deliver up documents, 612. 
 making false entry in any document, 614. 
 parting with any document, 614. 
 preventing production of any document, 612. 
 to be kept by trustee for six years after final dividend, 660, 399. 
 title papers and documents under seal to be kept for further 
 
 period of fourteen years, 660, 399. 
 to be produced when ordered by court, 660. 
 trustee to take possession of, 245, 247. 
 
 DOMINION. See Constitutional Law. 
 
 DOMINION STATISTICIAN— 
 
 duty of trustee to send returns to, 277. 
 
756 INDEX. 
 
 DOUBLE BANKRUPTCY. See Second Bankruptcy. 
 
 DOWER— ' 
 
 bar of as valuable consideration, 354. 
 
 DWELLING HOUSE— 
 what may be, 61. 
 
 y 
 
 EARNINGS. See also Salary, Wages, Income. 
 of bankrupt, 296. See Property. 
 
 discharge subject to conditions witth respect to earnings, 516, 
 517. See Discharge. 
 
 EASEMENT— 
 
 included in " property," 68. 
 
 ELECTION— 
 
 acceptance of dividend is an election, 392. 
 
 election to prove against joint or separate estate in cases of 
 
 fraud, 430, 447. 
 election to retain leasehold property, 473, 701. See Lease. 
 secured creditor who elects to prove without valuing his security, 
 
 408. 
 trustee put to election whether to sue for return of property or 
 
 damages, 308. 
 trustee put to election whether to redeem or not, 435. 
 
 ELSEWHERE, 94. 
 
 EMPLOYEE— 
 
 a preferred creditor, 457. See Priority. 
 corporation may act by employee duly authorized, 607. 
 examination of, 502. See Examination. 
 proceedings against, 663. 
 
 ENFORCEMENT^ 
 
 of orders throughout Canada, 584. And see Courts. 
 of search warrants throughout Canada, 587. 
 
 ERROR. See Irregularity. 
 
 ESCROW— 
 
 assignment as, 94. 
 
 ESTATE— 
 
 included in " property," 68. 
 
 ESTOPPEL— 
 
 as regards joint and separate estates, 469. 
 
 generally, 337, 378. 
 
 of creditors who have assented to comp6sition, 489. 
 
 of creditors who have assented to a void deed, 173. 
 
 of debtor who obtains a composition where debt treated as 
 
 valid in statement of affairs, 495. 
 of debtor not conclusive in favour of creditor's claim, 488. 
 of petitioning creditor, 92, 97, 98, 128, 173. 
 of trustee, 148. 
 on motion in bankruptcy by reason of failure elsewhere, 638. 
 
 EVIDENCE— 
 
 copy of disposition or examination certified by proper officer to 
 
 have same effect as original depositions, 643. 
 deposition of debtor or witness made evidence after death by 
 seal of court 601. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 757 
 
 BVI DENCE— Continued. 
 
 deposition of witness or person may be put in evidence by order 
 
 of court, 642. 
 order of discharge conclusive evidence, 533, 534. 
 of documents and proceedings — 
 
 sealed with seal of court, 600. 
 
 signed by judge, 600. 
 
 certified true copy by registrar, 600. 
 of facts stated in notice appearing in Canada Gazette, 599. 
 of proceedings at meetings— 
 
 by minute signed by chairman, 598. 
 of receiving order by copy of Canada Gazette, 599. 
 power of court with respect to reception of, 575. See Court. 
 report of trustee prima facie evidence. See Report. 
 
 EXAMINATION— 
 
 any party to examine for discovery, 644. 
 
 before registrar 569. See Registrar. 
 
 duty of debtor to submit to examination, 493. 
 
 form of order for examination, commission or letters of reciuest 
 
 643. 
 in shorthand, 642. 
 
 by question and answer, 642. 
 
 certified copy so taken to have same effect as original deposi- 
 tions, 643. 
 notes of examination of debtor or others, 712. 
 of any witness or person by order of court where necessary for 
 purposes of justice, 642. 
 deposition so taken may be given in evidence, 642. 
 of debtor, agent, clerk, servant, officer, director, employee, 501, 
 505 seq., 509. 
 appointment for examination, 502, 666; form for, 711. 
 
 service of appointment, 666. 
 examination by court, 508. 
 
 examination may not be for ulterior purpose, 510. 
 fees, 502, 513. 
 may be held before registrar or other person, 666. 
 
 in what districts or divisions, 666. 
 no witness may refuse to answer, 502, 506, 507. 
 
 but may claim privilege, 506. 
 object of the examination, 506. 
 on resolution of creditors, 501. \ 
 
 or inspectors, 502. 
 penalty for failure to attend, 502, 507, 513. 
 
 only recalcitrant persons to be brought up by warrant, 
 512. 
 production of books, etc., 502. 
 right of witness to copy of his examination, 511. 
 summons or appointment, 502. 
 
 service of, 512. 
 whether debtor may also be examined as judgment debtor, 
 
 511. 
 where witness ill examination at his residence, 512. 
 witness may be asked any pertinent question, 509. 
 witness may have counsel present, 508. 
 of debtor who makes proposal for composition, 208. 
 of debtor at first meeting, 492, 495, 505. 
 
 on application for discharge, 530, 666. See Discharge. 
 to be filed on application for discharge, 516. See Discharge. 
 who has a conditional discharge, 668. 
 of documents in possession of trustee, 277. 
 of person arrested under warrant, 645. 
 
 notice of appointment, 645. 
 of person who fails to produce books, documents or property, 
 
 503, 513, 514. 
 whether examination in to be in public or private, 505. 506. 
 
758 INDEX. 
 
 '■• EXECUTION— 
 
 court may stlay issue of execution pending ad-justment of rights 
 
 of contributories, 664. 
 creditor may become a secured creditor, 189. 
 effect of in case of married woman, 64. 
 loses precedence to receiving orders or authorized assignments, 
 
 178, 181, 183, 186 seq., 355. 
 not invalid by reason of being an act of bankruptcy, 178. 
 not to issue on_ certain judgments without leave, 517, 667. 
 of execution creditor a preferred claim, 457. 
 property exempt from does not vest in trustee. 168, 278. See 
 
 Property. 
 remaining unsatisfied may be act of bankruptcy, 117. 
 writs of to issue from proper office, 649. 
 
 EXECUTOR AND EXECUTRIX— 
 
 executor's position with respect to damnosa hceriditas com- 
 pared with trustee's, 485. 
 right of retainer when a restricted creditor, 452. 
 who proves, abandons his right of retainer, 445. 
 
 EXEMPTIONS— 
 
 statutory exemptions do not vest in trustee, 278, 285. And see 
 Property. 
 
 EX PARTE APPLICATION AND ORDER— 
 
 jurisdiction of registrar, 569. See Registrar. 
 
 should not be appealed against^ application to rehear, 592. 
 
 without notice of motion, 638. 
 
 EXPENSES. See Costs, Disbursements. 
 
 debtor attending meeting entitled to in certain cases, 661. 
 
 in contributory cases, 382. 
 
 of trustee a preferred claim. See Priority. 
 
 to be paid "before debtor entitled to suriplus, 393. 
 
 EXPUNGING PROOF— 
 
 court may expunge, 486, 490. See Debt. 
 
 EXTENSION OF TIME. See Composition. 
 a proposal for, 31, 203. 
 nature of, 213. 
 
 EXTRADITION— 
 
 under bankruptcy law in Criminal Code, 627. 
 
 EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY, 27-28. 
 
 jurisdiction as to. See" Courts of Bankruptcy. 
 
 FACTOR— 
 
 property held by factor does not vest in trustee, 283. 
 
 FALSE BIDDING— 
 
 in case of sale of immovable property in Quebec, 253, 660. 
 
 FALSE CLAIM— 
 
 by creditor an offence, 623. See Offences. 
 
 FARMER— 
 
 cannot be made a bankrupt, 56. 
 
 FATHER— 
 
 a restricted creditor, 450. 
 
 FEES— 
 
 and expenses of trustee a 'preferred claim. See Priority. 
 
 fees and costs of attorneys, solicitors and oounsel. See Costs. 
 
IXDEX. .,3 9 
 
 FEES — Continued. 
 
 fees and costs of ofBcers of court. See Costs. 
 
 lien for fees of sheriff, 181.. 
 
 of inspector, 410, 413. 
 
 of sheriff to be paid, 178, 190, 191. 
 
 a preferred claim, 457. 
 of solicitor on collection of accounts, 728. 
 witness fees, 502. See Witness. 
 
 FEME SOLE, 57. And see Married Woman. 
 
 FIFTY CENTS ON THE DOLLAR— 
 
 in case of proposal for composition, 209. 
 
 to be considered on application for discharge, 525. See Dis- 
 charge. 
 
 FILING— 
 
 authorized assignment, 169. 
 
 of proceedings with registrar, 636. 
 
 FINAL DIVIDEND. See Dividend. 
 
 FINE— 
 
 on gaoler who refuses to receive prisoner. 588. 
 
 FIRM. See Partnership. 
 
 FIRST MEETING. See Meeting. 
 
 FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS— 
 
 appeal when amount involved exceeds, 589. See Appeal. 
 
 FOREIGN BANKRUPTCY— 
 English bankruptcy, 74. 
 generally, 71 seq. 
 ' pooling of assets in case of, 390. 
 
 FOREIGN DISCHARGE— 
 effect of, 536. 
 
 FOREIGNER, 60. 
 
 FORMAL DEFECTS. See Irregularity. 
 
 FORMS— 
 
 costs in case of more prolix forms, 635. 
 to be used, 635. 
 
 FRACTION OF DAY. See Time. 
 
 FRAUD— 
 
 debts incurred by fraud not released by discharge. See Debts. 
 discharge of trustee no release from results of fraud, 399. 
 fraud a reason for refusal of discharge, 526. See Discharge. 
 sale induced by, rights of vendor, 41. 
 
 FRAUDULENT ASSIGNMENT— 
 where no assets, 178. 
 
 FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE— 
 an act of bankruptcy, 91, 99. 
 i must be fraudulent against creditors. 99. 
 
 sale or mortgage of whole of debtor's property not neces- 
 sarily act of bankruptcy, 103. 
 assignment for past debt and present or future advance, 
 
 104. 
 test to be applied in case of advance, 104. 
 sale of part only of debtor's property, 105. 
 
760 INDEX. 
 
 FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE— Continued. 
 may be protected by section 32, 359. 
 may be o£ two classes — 
 
 contrary to general policy of the law, 100. 
 intent inferred, 102. 
 meaning of fraudulent, 101. 
 protection of innocent transferee, 102. 
 sale of whole of debtor's property to a company, 103. 
 voidable only, not void, 100. 
 contrary to provincial law, 106. 
 arts. 1032-1040 C.P.C., 109. 
 13 Eliz., c. 5, 106 seq. 
 may come within Criminal Code, 110. 
 
 FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE— 
 
 apart from statute a- preference is unimpeachable, 111, 341. 
 avoidance of fraudulent preferences, 339, 355. 
 
 doctrine not invoked for benefit of single creditor, 342. 
 Innocence of preferred creditor, 342 seq. 
 money clothed with a trust, 352. 
 preference after the date of petition, 342. 
 preference can be impeached within three months, 339, 341. 
 can be impeached by summary proceedings under Rule 
 
 120, 342. 
 whether transaction can be avoided after three months, 
 112, 341. 
 fraudulent preference an act of bankruptcy, 91, 111. 
 right to set-oft cannot be impeached as giving a preference, 
 
 323, 342. 
 transaction must have the effect of giving a preference, 339. 
 in such case evidence of pressure not receivable, 339 
 346, 347. 
 transaction must be with a view of giving a preference, 339. 
 cases where there is no view of giving a preference — 
 a sense of binding obligation, 348. 
 payments in the ordinary course of business, 350. 
 payment to a secured creditor, 351. 
 payment of regular allowance, 351. 
 previous agreement, 348. 
 revivor of debt, 351. 
 evidence of other acts may show intent, 355. 
 transaction must be with reference to debtor's own pro- 
 perty, 351. 
 a reason for refusal of discharge, 526. See Discharge. 
 can only be given by an insolvent, 339, 347. 
 following proceeds of fraudulent preference, 368. 
 fraudulent preference not within the protection of section 32, 
 
 355. 
 transactions which may be fraudulent preferences, 339, 353. 
 payments made, 339, 353. 
 judicial proceedings taken or suffered, 354. 
 payments and compositions made after arrest may be prefer- 
 ence. 499. 
 what is not a fraudulent preference may be otherwise impeach- 
 able, 354. 
 
 FRIVOLOUS PROCEEDINGS— 
 by debtor. See Discharge. 
 
 FUTURE PROPERTY. See also After-acquired Property. 
 assignment of future chattels, 83. 
 assignment of future receipts and debts, 83. 
 charge on, whether it makes creditor secured creditor, 82. 
 
 FUTURE RTGHTS— 
 
 appeal in cases affecting, 589. See Appeal. 
 
ISDEX. y§i 
 
 GAOL. See Prison. 
 
 committal of " witness," 502. 
 
 GAOLER— 
 
 penalty for refusal to receive, 588. 
 
 GARNI SHMENTS— 
 
 lose precedence to receiving orders and authorized assignments, 
 178, 188. 
 
 GAZETTE. And see Notice. 
 
 King's Printer to supply copies of Canada Gazette 180. 
 omission to gazette, 200. 
 principal means of giving notice, 195. 
 
 registrars and others to keep a copy and index of Canada 
 Gazette, 180. 
 
 GAZETTED— 
 defined, 62. 
 
 GENERAL RULES— 
 defined, 62. 
 Governor-in-Council or judges may make, 572. 
 
 not to extend jurisdiction of court, 572. 
 except as to corporations, 572. 
 judicially noticed, 572. 
 non-compliance with, 573. 
 referred to, 54, 168, 399, 486, 493. 546, 547, 56'9, 570, 573, 575. 
 
 598, 600. 
 to be laid before parliament, 572. 
 to have effect as if enacted, 572. 
 
 GIFT— 
 
 right of trustee to property, 307. See Property. 
 
 GOOD FAITH. See Pdkchasee. 
 
 in case of impeached transactions, 332, 368. 
 
 required to protect certain transactions, 356, 358, 363, 371. 373. 
 
 GOODS. See Chattels. 
 
 assigning, removing, secreting of goods act of bankruptcy, 120. 
 
 concealment or destruction of ground for arrest of debtor, 499. 
 
 defined, 63. 
 
 included in " property," 68. 
 
 not to be removed by third party for fifteen days, 275. * 
 
 penalty, 630. 
 on consignment not to be removed for fifteen days, 275. 
 
 do not vest in trustee, 283. 
 of debtor held in pledge by third party, 274. 
 perishable goods may be sold by interim receiver, 149. 
 seizure of by warrant, 498. 
 
 seized und«r warrant to be delivered to trustee, 644. 
 subject to restrictions may be sold by trustee, 250. 
 
 GOODWILL— 
 
 rights flowing from sale of, 259. 
 
 GOVERNOR OF PRISON— 
 
 debtor or witness arrested to be delivered to, 644, G45. 
 production of debtor or witness by, 645. 
 
 GRANT. See Assignment. 
 
 GRANTEE. See Assignee. 
 
 GUARANTEE. See Sueety. 
 
-762 INDEX. 
 
 GUARANTOR— 
 
 included in " creditor " in case of fraudulent preference, 339. 
 
 HEARING— 
 
 of petition, 123, 655. See Petition. 
 
 HOLIDAY. See Time. 
 
 HOURS FOR SERVICE, 646. 
 
 HUSBAND. ,See Married Woman, Co-hespordent, Settlement. 
 a restricted creditor in wife's bankruptcy, 44?. 
 
 HYPOTHECS— 
 
 receiving order and authorized assignment to take precedence 
 over judgments operating as hypothecs, 181, 184. 
 
 IMPERFECTION— 
 
 no advantage to be taken o'f if amendment possible, 202. See 
 Irregularity. 
 
 INCAPACITY. See Debtor. 
 
 INCOME. See Salary. Earnings, Wages. 
 
 discharge subject to condition with respect to, 516, 517. See 
 Discharge. 
 
 INCRIMINATING QUESTIONS, 506. See Examination. 
 
 INCUMBRANCER— 
 
 advanced where settlement avoided, 333. 
 
 for value and in good faith protected where settlement avoided, 
 
 326. And see Purchaser. 
 may purchase property with leave of court, 258. 
 
 INDEX— 
 
 of Canada Gazette to be kept by 'registrars, -etc., 180. 
 
 INDIANS, 56, 59. 
 
 INDICTMENT— 
 
 form of for offence under the Act, 628. 
 
 INFANT— 
 
 whether an infant can be made a bankrupt, 56. 
 
 INQUIRY— 
 
 court may direct other court to conduct, 584. See Court. 
 
 INSOLVENCY. See Insolvent. 
 
 distinguished from bankruptcy, 2. 
 
 legislation, 2, 3, 25. And see Bankruptcy Legislation. 
 
 meaning of, 2. 
 
 of settlor, 326, 333. 
 
 statement showing insolvency an act of bankruptcy, 120. 
 
 INSOLVENT. • See Insolvency. 
 defined, 63. 
 generally, 339, 347. 
 
 INSPECTORS, INSPECTOR. See Committee. 
 appointed at first meeting, 401, 410. 
 court not to act without prior application to, 611. 
 fees of, 410, 413. 
 for joint and separate estates, 413. 
 
 may sanction payment of costs, 648. 
 
INDEX. 703 
 
 INSPECTORS, INSPECTOR— Continued. 
 general position of, 35. 
 in a fiduciary position, 412. 
 
 may not purchase or acquire property without leave of 
 court, 256, 410. 
 
 may not make a profit out of trust, 412. 
 individual inspector may require trustee to report to him, 276. 
 may require early payment of dividend, 384. 
 
 apply for order directing trustee to expunge or reduce proof, 
 486. 
 
 direct trustee not to take proceedings, 376. 
 
 increase fees and costs of solicitor in certain cases, 573. 
 See Costs. 
 
 limit amount of costs to be incurred, 267. 
 
 object to payment of dividend on certain claims, 384. 
 
 obtain order for prosecution of debtor, 623. 
 
 waive taxation of trustee's disbursements, 396. 
 not to exceed five, 410. 
 permission of required, 251, 272, 316. 
 
 absence of permission no defence to action, 265. See 
 Defence. 
 
 not required in certain cases, 380. 
 
 permission must not be general, 252, 271. 
 powers of may be exercised by majority, 410. 
 
 casting vote of trustee, 410. 
 resolution of for examination of debtor and others, 502. 
 
 for production of books, documents, etc., 503. 
 revocation of appointment of, 410. 
 
 INSPECTION. See also Discovery. 
 
 any person may inspect proceedings of record in court, 630. 
 right of trustee to inspect all books and documents, 669. 
 and goods in pledge, 274. 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS— 
 fees for, 724. 
 
 INSURANCE. See Life Insurance. 
 
 effect of assignment' on insurance policy, 177. 
 insurance becomes payable to trustee, 245. 248. 
 trustee to insure, 245. 
 
 INSURANCE COMPANY— 
 
 not included in " corporation," 53. 
 
 INTENT TO DEFEAT OR DELAY— 
 
 intent inferred in some cases of fraudulent conveyance, 102. 
 intent in case of assignment, etc., of goods, 121. 
 intent must be proved in absconding and similar cases, 113. 
 need not prove intent to defeat or delay in case of assignment, 
 95. 
 
 INTEREST— 
 
 allowed trustee on security provided in cash. 670. 
 included in " property," 68. 
 on dividend withheld, 387. See Dividend. 
 proof for, 429, 453. 
 
 no proof for interest accruing after date of receiving order. 
 454. 
 any surplus to be applied in payment of interest after 
 
 receiving order, 458. 
 exception to the rule, 455. 
 secured creditors, 455. 
 rebate of in case of debts payable at a future time, 456, 455, 429. 
 to be paid before debtor entitled to surplus, 393. 
 
764 INDEX. 
 
 INTERIM ORDER— 
 
 jurisdiction of registrar, 569. See Registrar. 
 
 INTERIM RECEIVER— 
 
 damages where petition dismissed, 654. 
 
 remuneration. of trustee, 654. 
 form of order appointing, 681. 
 may be appointed, 149, 654. 
 powers of, 149. 
 
 INTERLINEATION— 
 
 must be authenticated, 640. 
 
 INTERPLEADER— 
 
 right of sheriff to interplead by motion, 638. 
 time occupied by interpleader proceedings where goods seized, 
 118. 
 
 INTERPRETATION, 49, 635. 
 
 INTERROGATORIES— 
 
 any party entitled to administer, 644. 
 
 court may accept evidence by, 575. See Court. 
 
 INTERVENTION OP TRUSTEE— 
 
 with respect to after-acquired property, 371, 375. 
 
 INVALIDITY. See Irregularity. 
 
 IRREGULARITY— . , 
 
 correction of formal slips on application to approve composition. 
 
 659. 
 court may receive affidavit notwithstanding formal defects, 641. 
 defects in appointment of inspector or trustee, G04 seg. 
 in publication or registration, 183, 200. 
 
 no advantage to be taken of if amendment possible; 202, 605. 
 non-cpmpliarice with rules not to render proceedings void, 670. 
 omission to gazette, 606. 
 omission to publish or register, 183, 184, 200. 
 proceedings at meetings of creditors regular notwithstanding 
 
 non-receipt of notice, 661. 
 proceedings not invalidated when taken in wrong court, 124, 148. 
 / proceedings not to be invalidated by formal defects, .604 seg. 
 wrong initials, 606. 
 
 ISSUE— 
 
 court may direct trial of, 584. See Court. 
 
 appeal from decision on, 584. See Appeal. 
 
 JOINT AND SEPARATE CREDITOR. See Joint and Separate 
 
 Estate. 
 
 JOINT CONTRACTS— 
 
 action on without joinder of bankrupt, 583. 
 
 JOINT AND SEPARATE ESTATE. See Partnership, Separate 
 Property. 
 applicability of joint and separate estates in payment of joint 
 and separate debts, 457, 465 seg. 
 consolidation of estates. 472. ^ 
 
 -partner may not compete with firm creditors, 470. 
 what is joint and separate estate, 469. 
 agreement among partners, 469. 
 bankruptcy of one partner, 470. 
 estoppel, 469. 
 consolidation of proceedings, 576. 579, 581, 582. See Court. 
 inspectors for, 413. 
 
INDEX. 765 
 
 JOINT AND SEPARATE ESTATE — Continued. 
 
 joint and separate assets and debts to be distinguished in state- 
 ment of affairs, 495. 
 
 payment of costs in case of, where one estate insufficient, 648. 
 
 proof against both estates where distinct contracts, 446, 448. 
 
 proof against joint or separate estate in case of partnership 
 debt incurred by fraud, 430, 447. 
 
 ranking of claims where different estates, 319, 457, 466. 
 
 JOINT CONTRACT— 
 
 proof in respect of distinct contracts, 446. See Joist and 
 Separate Estate. 
 
 JOINT. CREDITOR— 
 
 proof in respect of distinct contracts, 446. See Joint and 
 Separate Estate. 
 
 JOINT DEBTOR— 
 
 proof in respect of distinct contracts, 446. See Joint asm 
 Separate Estate. 
 
 JUDGE— 
 
 application to compel registration, 183. 
 
 certain applications to be made to, 663. 
 
 defined, 64, 634. 
 
 may exercise his jurisdiction in chambers, 546. 
 
 to be assigned by Minister of Justice or ^chief justice. See 
 
 Courts of Bankruptcy. 
 to specify what notice to be given on application to amend, 202. 
 
 JUDGMENT— 
 
 effect of in case of married woman, 64, 597. 
 judgment as a condition to discharge of debtor, 517. 
 not conclusive evidence of creditor's debt, 133, 488. 
 ■ receiving order and authorized assignment to take precedence 
 over, 181, 183. 
 tariff of costs, 726. 
 
 JURISDICTION. See also Courts of Bankruptcy. Court, Action. 
 courts are auxiliary to one another, 584. See Courts. 
 extra-territorialty, 71. 
 
 not to be extended by General Rules. See General Rules. 
 of court may be exercised by judge in chambers, 546. 
 of courts of bankruptcy. See Courts of Bankruptcy. 
 
 to be exercised by an assigned judge. See Courts of Bank- 
 ruptcy. 
 of registrar. See Registrar. 
 
 of Supreme Court of Canada to hear appeals, 589. 
 to what court petition to be presented, 123. 
 
 effect of presentation to wrong court, 124, 148. 
 
 JUSTIFICATION— 
 affidavit of, 639. 
 form, 679. 
 
 KEEPER OP PRISON. See Governor of Prison. 
 
 KEEPING HOUSE— 
 
 an act of bankruptcy, 113, 116. 
 
 KING'S PRINTER— 
 
 to supply copies of Gazette, 180, 195. 
 
 LABOURER— 
 
 a preferred creditor, 457. See Priority. 
 
766 INDEX. 
 
 LAND— 
 
 description of in notice of motion, 663. 
 included in " property," 68. 
 
 LANDLORD. And see Lease and Disclaim. 
 a preferred creditor, 457. 
 
 as regards three months' rent, 460. See Rent. 
 
 LAPSE OF TIME. See Statute of Limitations. 
 
 LEASE. See also Landlord, Distress, Disclaim, Rent. 
 head lease may be vested in underlessee, 475. 
 lease vests in trustee who becomes personally liable on all 
 covenants, 483. 
 assignment to pauper, 484. 
 not " goods," 63. 
 
 trustee may disclaim, 252, 271, 472 seq. See Disclaim. 
 entitled to continue in occupation, 473. 
 form of notice of disclaimer, 701. 
 may assign, 252, 271, 474. 
 
 assignee to be approved by court and to give guarantee, 
 
 474. , . 
 
 assignment to a pauper, 484. 
 may retain, 252, 271, 474. 
 
 form of notice of election to retain, 701. 
 notwithstanding clause that lease avoided by bank- 
 ruptcy, 473, 483, 484. 
 may surrender at any time, 473, 484. 
 
 if no surrender within thj;ee months trustee must give 
 notice, 473. 
 whether damages against an overholding tenant is provable 
 debt, 483. 
 
 LEAVE— 
 
 to appeal to Supreme Court, 651. See Appeal. 
 
 LESSOR. See Lease, Landlord. 
 
 LETTERS— 
 
 order for, 713. 
 re-direction of, 515. 
 tariff of costs for, 726. 
 
 LETTERS OF REQUEST— 
 form of, 643. 
 
 LICENSE TO SEIZE— 
 
 effect of discharge on, 536. _ 
 
 LIEN— 
 
 conditions on which liens attach, 86. 
 equitable, 86. 
 general, 85, 86. 
 
 factor's, 85. 
 
 banker's, 85. 
 
 solicitor's, 85, 268. 
 loss of lien, 87. 
 no lien to be set up against trustee on debtor's books of account, 
 
 669. 
 qf trustee on trust property, 242. 
 
 right of lienholder as secured creditor to register lien, 157. 
 right of trustee to inspect all books and documents of debtor 
 
 notwithstanding solicitor's or other person's lien, 669. 
 specific, 84. 
 
 LIFE INSURANCE— 
 
 saving of payments of premiums, 327. 
 
INDEX. 7(37 
 
 LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF. See Statute of Limitation's. 
 
 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP— 
 Act applicable to, 598. 
 effect of receiving order against, 657. 
 
 property of vests in trustee when all general partners bank- 
 rupt, 598. 
 
 LIQUIDATOR. See Trustee. 
 
 proceedings against under Winding-up Act, 663. 
 
 LIS PENDENS— 
 
 may issue in certain cases, 663. 
 
 LOAN— 
 
 may be a restricted debt. See Restricted Creditor. 
 
 LOAN COMPANY— 
 
 not included in " corporation," 53. 
 
 LOCAL LAW. See Provincial Law. 
 
 LOCAL NEWSPAPER— 
 denned, 65. 
 
 LOCALITY— 
 
 assignment to trustee not in locality of debtor, 174. 
 of debtor denned, 65. 
 of partnership, 66. 
 referred to, 123, 168, 169. 
 
 LOCUS STANDI— 
 
 of debtor. See Debtor. 
 
 of creditor. See Creditor. 
 
 of inspector. See Inspector. 
 
 of third party where order will not bind him, 638. 
 
 LOWER SCALE— 
 of costs, 648. 
 
 LUMPING SECURITIES— 
 
 prima facie legal but trustee may require separate valuation, 
 433, 441. See Secured Creditor. 
 
 LUNATIC— 
 
 whether a lunatic may be made bankrupt, 59. 
 way act by committee or curator, 607. 
 
 MAIL— 
 
 re-direction of, 515. 
 order for, 713. 
 
 MAINTENANCE— 
 debt for, 50. 
 
 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION— 
 
 act''/m for by debtor against trustee, 626. 
 
 MANAGEMENT— 
 
 of property of debtor, debtor appointed, 272. 
 
 MANAGER— 
 
 proceedings against under Winding-up Act, 663. 
 
 MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT. See Settlement. 
 
 covpnants or contracts in consideration of marriage, 326. 
 
 in fraud of creditors a ground for refusing discharge, 530. 
 
768 INDEX. 
 
 MARRIED WOMAN. See Husband, Co-respondent, Settlement. 
 effect of judgment, etc., in case of, 64, 597. 
 "subject to provisions of the Act — 
 
 if she carries on trade or business, 597. 
 whether a married woman can be made bankrupt, 57, 65. 
 
 MARSHALLING— 
 
 in case of shares wrongfully pledged, 87. 
 
 MECHANICS' LIEN ACTION— 
 
 leave of court necessary in some cases, 228. 
 
 MEETING OF CREDITORS. See also Composition, Notice, Inspec- 
 tors. 
 adjournment, 402, 406. < 
 
 adjourned meeting to be held at same place, 661. 
 chairman, 402. 
 
 can admit or reject proofs, 403, 409. 
 debtor attending certain meetings entitled to conduct money, 
 
 661. See Witness.- 
 , first meeting, 36, 401. 
 
 debtor to attend and submit to examination at, 492, 495. 
 
 notice of, 401. See Notice. 
 
 reconvened, 406. 
 
 to consider affairs of debtor, 401, 409. 
 
 to appoint inspectors, 401. 
 
 to give directions to trustee, 401.. 
 meeting valid notwithstanding non-receipt of notice, etc., 661. 
 meeting by request of twenty-five per cent, of creditors, 401. 
 minutes, 402, 598. 
 
 evidence of proceedings at, 598. See Evidence. 
 
 proceedings at deemed regular where minutes signed by 
 chairman, 598. 
 notice of subsequent meeting only to those who have proved, 401. 
 
 notice to debtor of meeting of creditors, 706. 
 
 quorum, 402, 406. 
 requiring trustee to furnish additional security, 231. 
 to appoint new trustee where additional security not furnished, 
 
 231. 
 to substitute new trustee, 237, 239. 
 
 voting at 237, 239. 
 voting at. See Vote. 
 
 casting vote of trustee, 404. 
 
 trustee not to vote where his interest affected 404, 405. 
 
 court may disregard resolution in certain cases, 409. 
 
 creditor may vote by proxy, 403. 
 
 creditor only can vote who has proved, 402, 406. 
 corporation may vote, 404. 
 
 creditor secured by bill or note, 403, 409. 
 
 every class of creditors to express views separately, 54, 661. 
 court may adjust rights, 661. , 
 
 no vote on part of claim acquired after assignment, 404. 
 
 scale of votes, 404. 
 
 secured creditor votes in respect of balance after deducting 
 value of security, 402, 404, 407. 
 
 MEMBER— 
 
 of corporation a creditor, 54. 
 
 MINISTER OP JUSTICE— 
 to administer the Act, 632. 
 to assign judge in certain cases. See Courts of Bankruptcy. 
 
 MINOR. See Infant. 
 
 MINUTES— 
 - of meeting, 402. ' See Meeting. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 769 
 
 MISTAKE. See Irregulabitt. 
 
 MONEY— 
 
 included in " property," 68. 
 
 may be seized t>y warrant, 498. 
 
 money lent a restricted claim in some cases, 409 seq. 
 
 paid into court, whether creditor secured creditor, 82. 
 
 seized under warrant to tie delivered to trustee, 644. 
 
 which passes to the trustee, 69. 
 
 MORTGAGE AND MORTGAGEE— 
 
 execution creditor who redeems may become a mortgagee, 189. 
 
 jurisdiction over. See Courts of Bankruptcy. 
 
 of property by committee pending investigation of proposal, 206. 
 
 mortgagee a secured creditor, 80. 
 
 set aside as fraudulent and void, 663. 
 
 trustee may mortgage property, 251. 
 
 MOTHER— 
 
 a restricted creditor, 450. 
 
 MOTION. And see Application. 
 
 application to be by motion, 637. 
 
 MOVABLE PROPERTY— 
 included in " goods," 63. 
 
 MUTUALITY. See Set-off. 
 
 NAME OF TRUSTEE. See Authorized Trustee. 
 
 NECESSARIES— 
 debt, for, 50. 
 debt for not released by discharge, 532. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE— 
 
 of trustee in disposing of property of third party, 274. 
 
 NOTES— 
 
 of examination of debtor or others, 712. 
 
 NOTICE— 
 
 failure to receive notice not to invalidate meeting, 661. 
 
 fees for notices as iper tariff, 725. 
 
 may be sent by registered post where no other way specified, 
 
 603. 
 of admission of proof, 662. 
 of appeal from decision of registrar, 6£0. 
 
 to be filed and served, 650. 
 
 contents of, 650. 
 of appeal to Appeal Court — 
 
 to be filed and served, 650. 
 of application for committal, 708. 
 of application for discharge of debtor, 516, 714. 
 
 of order of discharge to be gazetted, 533, 721. 
 of application for discharge of trustee, 660. 
 
 of intention to oppose application, 660. 
 of applicatiion to amend receiving order or authorized assign- 
 ment. 202. 
 of appointment for examination of arrested person, 645. 
 of appointment to settle order, 633. 
 of appointment to tax, 648. 
 of available act of bankruptcy, 356, 361. See Available Act of 
 
 Bankruptcy. 
 
 b.c. — 49 , 
 
7'J INDEX. 
 
 NOTICE — Continued. 
 
 of disallowance of claim, 486, 702. 
 of disclaimer of lease, 702. 
 of dividend, 384, 390, 697. 
 
 notification of admission of proof, 662. 
 
 of filial dividend, 385, 390, 697. 
 of election to retain leasehold property, 701. 
 of first meeting of creditors, 401. 
 
 form of, 684. 
 
 to be published, 179. 
 
 to be gazetted, 179. 
 
 to be mailed to Dominion Statistician, 277. 
 of hearing of petition, 652, 673. 
 
 by debtor of intention to oppose petition, 655, 677. 
 
 of substituted service of petition, 675. 
 
 of sureties on stay of proceedings and trial of debt, 679. 
 of meeting to appoint new trustee, 691. 
 
 of appointment of new trustee, 692. 
 of motion, except on ex parte application, 638. 
 
 application for leave to serve short notice, 638. 
 
 four days' notice, 638. 
 
 on appeal from trusteee's rejection of claim, 662. 
 
 on application to avoid certain transactions, 663. 
 
 service of. See Service. 
 
 supporting affidavits to be filed, 638. 
 
 to be filed, 638. 
 
 to value unliquidated claim, 662. 
 
 wrong date mentioned, 638. 
 of receiving order and authorized assignment, 179, 194, 197, 684. 
 
 to be gazetted, 179, 194. 
 
 to b,e published, 179, 194. 
 
 to be mailed to Dominion Statistician, 277. 
 of order annulling adjudication, 540, 277. 
 
 of subsequent meetings only to creditors who have proved, 401. 
 reckoning of days in giving notice, 670. See Time. 
 to creditors of offer of composition, 658, 684. 
 
 of application to court to approve composition, 658, 689. 
 to debtor of meeting of creditors, 702. 
 
 OATH. See Affidavit. 
 defined, 67. 
 
 OBLIGATION— 
 
 included in " property," 68. 
 
 OCCUPATION RENT. See Rent. 
 
 OFFENCES— 
 bankrupt — ■ 
 
 failing to keep proper books of account, 620. 
 proper books of account defined, 620. 
 creditor — 
 
 wilfully making any false claim, 623. 
 company — 
 
 officer, director, agent, liable personally, 631. 
 court may order prosecution of debtor, 623. 
 
 action for malicious prosecution, 626. 
 
 appeal, 625. 
 
 costs, 626. 
 
 on report of trustee or representation of any creditor or 
 inspector, 623. 
 
 order obtained ex parie t 624. 
 
 principles on which court to act, 625. 
 court may commit bankrupt for trial, 627. 
 
 form of indictment, 628. 
 
 may take depositions, bind over witnesses, admit to bail, 
 628. 
 
IXDEX. 77| 
 
 OFFENCES — Continued. 
 
 debtor failing to discover property to trustee, 612. 616, 617. 
 
 concealing, destroying, mutilating, falsifying any book, 
 etc., 613. 
 
 concealment of property, 612, 617. 
 
 failing to deliver up his property, 612. 
 
 failing to deliver up books, documents, etc., 612, 617. 
 
 failing to indicate disposition made of property, 612, 617. 
 
 failing to notify trustee of false debt, 613. 
 
 false representation to obtain consent of creditors. 615. 
 
 false statement respecting financial condition, 615. 
 
 fictitious losses or expenses, 614. 
 
 fraudulently obtaining property on credit, 614, 617. 
 
 fraudulently obtaining credit, 615, 617, 618. 
 
 fraudulent removal of ,property, 613, 617. 
 
 making false entry in book, 614. 
 
 material omission in statement of affairs, 613. 
 
 parting with any document, 614. 
 
 pawning, pledging, disposing of property obtained on credit, 
 615, 617, 618. 
 
 preventing production of any book, document, etc.. 613. 
 
 takes advantage of false statement respecting credit, 616. 
 only one prosecution for an offence under the Act, 628. 
 trustee — 
 
 acting without bond, 62if. 
 
 non-compliance with Act, 629. 
 
 pretending to be trustee, 629. 
 undischarged bankrupt — 
 
 engages in trade under deceptive name, 618. 
 
 obtains credit of five hundred dollars and upwards, 618. 
 
 OFFICER— 
 
 barristers, solicitors, advocates are made officers of courts, 610. 
 
 corporation may act by officer duly authorized, 607. 
 
 examination of, 502. See Examination. 
 
 fees and costs of officers of court, 649. And see Costs. 
 
 may be liable with company for offence, 631. 
 
 proceedings against, under Winding-up Act, 663. 
 
 refusing to act guilty of contempt, 650. 
 
 to be appointed by chief justice for court of bankruptcy, 567. 
 
 OFFICIAL NAME. See Authorized Trustee. 
 
 OMISSION. See Irregularity. 
 
 ONEROUS PROPERTY. See Disclaimer. 
 
 ORDER. See Receiving Owikr, Discharge. 
 form of order — 
 
 -annulling adjudication, 720. 
 appointing day for hearing, 689. 
 appointing interim receiver, 681. 
 approving conSposition, etc., 690. 
 discharging authorized trustee, 698. 
 for committal under sec. 54, 708. 
 for discharge from custody for contempt, 709. 
 for substituted service of petition, 676. 
 granting discharge subject to conditions as to earnings, 
 
 etc., 717. 
 granting discharge subject to consent judgment, 718. 
 granting unconditional discharge, 715. 
 refusing discharge, 715. 
 refusing to approve composition, etc., 690. 
 restraining action, etc., before receiving order, 682. 
 staying proceedings on petition, 677. 
 suspending discharge, 716, 717. 
 to Postmaster-General under sec. 57, 713. 
 transferring proceedings, 681. 
 
772 INDEX. 
 
 ORDER — Continued,. 
 
 may be enforced as if a judgment, 646. 
 settlement of, 639. 
 tariff of charges for, 726. 
 
 ORDERS AND WARRANTS— 
 
 enforcement of orders throughout Canada, 584. See Courts. 
 
 ORDINARY RESOLUTION— 
 defined, 67. 
 
 for examination of debtor ond others, 501. 
 for production of books, documents, etc., 503. 
 for transfer of proceedings to another court, 152. 
 included in " resolution," 7.6. 
 
 PAPERS. See Books. 
 
 duty of trustee to dispose of on his discharge, 399. 
 , offences in connection with — 
 
 failure to deliver up papers, 612, 617. 
 preventing production of any paper, 613. 
 production of papers relating to debtor, 502. See Production. 
 seizure of by warrant, 498. 
 seized under warrant to be delivered to trustee, 644. 
 
 PARTNERS. See also Firm, Joint and Separate Estate, Limited 
 
 Partnership. 
 action in name of trustee and bankrupt's partner, 582. 
 
 notice to partner of application to sue, 583. 
 
 release by partner void, 582. 
 not entitled to dividend until separate creditors paid in full, 385. 
 not released by discharge of his partner, 532. 
 partner indemnified against costs, 583. 
 power of partner to make assignment for fcenelt of creditors, 
 
 174. 
 priority of claims as between different estates. See joint and 
 
 Separate Estates. 
 
 PARTNERSHIP. See Limited Partnership, Joint and Separate 
 Estate. 
 
 actions by or against firm, 583. 
 
 disclosure of names of partners, 583. 
 
 consolidation of proceedings where petitions against two part- 
 ners, 581, See Court. 
 
 debt incurred by fraud, proof against joint or separate estates, 
 430, 447. 
 
 creditor must elect, 447. 
 
 disposition of property on insolvency, 159. 
 
 dividends in joint and separate estates. See Dividends. 
 
 effect of receiving order against, 657. 
 where infant partner, 657. 
 
 how claims are to rank when different estates, 319, 457. See 
 Joint and Separate Estate. 
 
 may act by any of its members, 607, 608. 
 
 personal service on firm, how effected, 653. 
 
 petition against firm, 581, 
 
 petition against one partner only, 580. 
 
 petition against several partners, 581. 
 
 restricted creditors in case of, 450. 
 
 same trustee where ^proceedings against two partners, 581. 
 
 statement of affairs by, 657. See Statement of Affairs. 
 
 PARTIES— 
 
 in case of joint contracts. See Action. 
 
 in partnership cases. See Partner, Partnership, Action. 
 
 where creditor takes proceedings in name of trustee, 377. 
 
INDEX. 773 
 
 PAST DEBT— 
 ■ assignment of all property for past debt may be fraudulent con- 
 veyance, 104. 
 
 PATENTED ARTICLES— 
 
 may be sold by trustee, 250. 
 
 PAWNING— 
 
 offence of pawning property obtained on credit, 615, 617, 618. 
 trustee may inspect goods held in pawn, 274. 
 
 PAYMENT— 
 
 affected by relation back of title of trustee, 144 seq. 
 
 application to set aside payments, 663. 
 
 covenants for future payment of money avoided in certain cases, 
 
 326, 327, 334. 
 
 saving payments of premiums on life insurance, 327. 
 into and out of court, tariff for, 726. 
 made under annulled adjudication validated, 540. 
 may be a fraudulent preference, 339, 353. See Fraudulent 
 
 Preference. 
 payment of dividends not a payment from which a promise to 
 
 pay the .balance can be inferred, 156. 
 protected in certain cases, 355 seq., 366, 372. 
 
 after date of receiving order, 372. 
 rules governing payment into court, 640. 
 to execution creditor may be fraudulent preference 192. 
 to sheriff, 191. 
 
 PAYMENT IN FULL— 
 
 adjudication annulled when, 539, 545. 
 
 PAYMENT INTO COURT— 
 
 on stay of proceedings, 141. 
 
 PENALTY— 
 
 on gaoler who refuses to receive prisoner, 588. 
 on registrar for refusal to register, 182. 
 on trustee for omission, etc., to register, 183. 
 proof for a penalty, 428. 
 
 PERMISSION— 
 
 of inspectors required, 251, 272. 
 
 absence of no defence to action, 265. See Defence. 
 must not be general, 252, 271. 
 not required, 380. 
 
 PERSON— 
 defined, 67. 
 
 PERSONAL EARNINGS. See Earnings, "Wages, Income. 
 of bankrupt, 296. See Property. 
 
 PERSONAL PROPERTY— 
 
 change of title to under r.o. and a. a., 198. 
 
 PERSONAL SERVICE. See Service. 
 
 PERUSALS— 
 
 tariff for, 724. 
 
 PETITION. See also Petitioning Creditor. 
 
 bankruptcy relates back to time of presentation of petition, 124. 
 conditions on which creditor may petition — 
 
 act of bankruptcy within six months of petition, 123, 132. 
 
 debt owing of five hundred dollars, 123. 
 
 purchase of debt, 131. 
 
 whether debt owing means "presently payable," 129, 139. 
 
 whether debt owing must be liquidated sum. 130. 
 
774 INDEX. 
 
 PETITION— Continued. 
 
 costs, charges and expenses of proceedings under petition to be 
 
 paid, 393. 
 damages where petition dismissed if interim receiver aplpointed, 
 
 654. 
 death of debtor before service, 654. 
 deemed to have been presented to court on day of filing thereof, 
 
 652. 
 defined, 68. 
 dismissal of — 
 
 estate can best be administered under an assignment, 123, 
 
 135. - 
 form, 680. . 
 
 generally. 123, 124, 133, 576. 
 " other sufficient cause " — 
 debts not yet due. 139. 
 destruction of 'assets, 137. 
 indirect motive, 137, 134. 
 no assets, 136 
 only one creditor, 139. 
 previous application refused, 139. 
 property not immediately available, 137. 
 surety, 139. 
 form of; 652, 672. 
 hearing of petition, 123. 
 
 affidavit of truth of statements in petition, 674. 
 appearance of debtor — 
 
 proceedings after trial of validity of debt, 656. 
 proof of debt at hearing or subsequent trial, 123, 124, 
 132, 655. 
 inquiry into validity of debt, 133. 
 order to stay proceedings on petition, 124, 141, 677, 
 652. See Stat. 
 notice of dispute by debtor, 655. 
 
 form for. 677. 
 non-appearance of debtor, 655. 
 
 receiving order may be made, 655. 
 issue of, sealed copy to petitioner, 652. 
 jurisdiction of registrar, 569. See Registrar. 
 may be presented against one partner, 580. 
 may be presented, 31. 123. 
 to which court. 123. 
 
 proceedings not. invalidated if taken in wrong court. 
 124, 148. See Irregularity. 
 must not be used in enforce payment of debt where bona fide 
 
 dispute. 134, 137. 
 notice of hearing of <Detition, 652, 673. 
 petition not to be withdrawn without leave, 124, 141. 
 receiving order made on petition, 123. 
 
 or on petition of another creditor, 124. 
 security for costs where petitioning creditor abroad, 652. 
 
 stay of proceedings until security furnished, 652. 
 to be sealed. 636. 
 
 to be served on debtor before hearing, 123, 652, 653, 654. See 
 Service. 
 affidavit of service. 675. . 
 to be verified by affidavit, 123. 
 two petitions against same firm, 581. 
 
 consolidation of proceedings, 581. See Court. 
 same court, 581. 
 same trustee, 581. 
 where more than one respondent court may dismiss as to them, 
 580. 
 
 PETITIONING CREDITOR- 
 COS Is of payable out of estate, 647. 
 
 court may otherwise order, 647. -. 
 
IXDEX. 775 
 
 PETITIONING CREDITOR— Continued. 
 
 may be estopped from relying on a particular act of bankruptcy, 
 
 92, 97, 128. 
 resident abroad, bankrupt, etc., to give security for costs, €54. 
 substitution of by court, 576. See Court. 
 who may be or may not be, 127. 
 
 PLEADINGS— 
 tariff for, 724. 
 
 PLEDGE— 
 
 goods of debtor held in pledge by third party may be inspected 
 
 Jby trustee, 274. 
 offence of pledging property obtained on credit, 615, 617, 618. 
 trustee may pledge property, 251. 
 
 POSTMASTER-GENERAL— 
 
 may be ordered to redirect debtors' mail, etc.. 515. 
 
 POSTPONEMENT. See Priority, Restricted Creditor. 
 
 former rule as to postponement of debt founded on voluntary 
 deed, 428. 
 
 POWER OF ATTORNEY— 
 
 revoked by act of bankruptcy, 92. 
 
 POWERS— 
 
 capacity to exercise powers vests In trustee. 278 
 
 PRACTICE— 
 
 general ipractice of the court to be followed, 671. 
 
 PREFERENCE. See Fraudulent Preference. 
 
 PREFERENCE SHAREHOLDER— 
 right to surplus, 394. See Surplus. 
 
 PREFERENTIAL DEBTS. See Restricted Creditors. 
 to be paid forthwith, 457. See Priority. 
 
 PRESCRIBED— 
 denned, 68. 
 
 PRESENT ATION-- 
 of petition, 123. 
 when presented. 652. 
 who may present, 126.. 
 
 trustee may not present, 671. 
 
 i 
 PRESSURE— 
 
 evidence of not receivable, 339, 346. See Fraudulent Pref- 
 erence. 
 
 PRIORITY. See Postponement, Restricted Creditor. 
 
 in default of Dominion law priorities determined by local law, 
 465. 
 privilege of landlord in Quebec, 478, 479. 
 in payment of debts in case of composition, 211. 
 in payment of creditors not claiming under settlement, 327. 
 in payment of claims generally, 457, 458. 
 costs of execution creditor, 457, 459. 
 fees and expenses of trustee, 457, 459, 460. 
 indebtedness under Workmen's Compensation Acts, 457, 
 
 459. 
 rent, 457. 459, 460, 472 seq. And see Rent. 
 taxes, 458, 460. 
 
776 INDEX. 
 
 PRIORITY— Continued. 
 in payment of 
 
 wages, salaries, commission and compensation, 457, 459, 
 462 seq. 
 wages a charge on security under Bank Act, 465. 
 new creditors entitled to priority where debtor carries on busi- 
 ness for trustee, 273. 
 provisions with respect to bind Crown, 608. 
 rules as between joint and separate creditors in bankruptcy of 
 firm, 319, 457, 466. See Joint and Separate Estates. 
 
 PRISON— 
 
 committal to convenient prison, 588. 
 
 debtor or witness delivered to keeper of, 644, 645. 
 
 PRIVILEGE— 
 
 privileged claim. See Priority. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS. And see Action, Stat of Proceedings. 
 
 by creditor where trustee refuses to act, 376. 
 
 certain proceedings against directors and others under Winding- 
 up Act, 663. 
 
 change of carriage of proceedings, 576. See Court. 
 
 consolidation of, 576. See Court. 
 
 continuance of proceedings on death of debtor, '576, 580. 
 
 costs, charge and expenses of proceedings under the petition 
 to be paid, 393. 
 
 fees for proceedings payable to registrar, 649. 
 
 for recovery of amount due from contributory, 381. 
 
 general practice of court to be followed, 671. 
 
 judicial proceedings taken or suffered may be fraudulent pref- 
 erence, 339, 354. 
 
 leave to proceed under Winding-up Act, 637. 
 
 not to be taken for benefit of single creditor, 266. 
 
 not invalidated by having taken in wrong court, 124. 
 
 retained in district in which commenced, 152. 
 
 stay of on making receiving order, 154, 160. See Stay. 
 generally; 576. See Stay. 
 
 title of, 575, 636, 207. 
 
 to be dated, intituled, and filed with registrar, 636. 
 
 to be written on sheet of certain size, 636. 
 
 to remain of record in the court, 635. 
 
 to be sealed, 636. 
 
 trustee may carry on and take, 251, 263 seq. 
 costs, 263. See Costs. 
 
 transfer of to proper court, 124, 637. 
 
 transfer to another district or division, 152, 637. 
 transmission of records by post, 637. 
 
 vexatious, 139. See Vexatious Proceedings. 
 
 what is a proceeding in court, 577, 636. 
 
 PROCEEDS— 
 
 following proceeds of trust funds, 284, 285. 
 
 rights of creditors under provincial law, 370. 
 
 right of trustee to follow proceeds of certain transactions, 368. 
 
 PROCESS. See Attachments, Execution. 
 
 PRODUCTION. See Inspection. 
 
 by discharged trustee on order of court of books and documents 
 
 of estate, 660. 
 of property, books, documents and papers, 502. 
 
 not being property of the debtor, 513. 
 offences — 
 
 of failure to deliver up books, documents, etc., 612, 617. 
 
 of preventing production of books, documents, etc., 613. 
 of writings or other documents — 
 
 may at any time be ordered by court, 643. 
 right of trustee to production of books notwithstanding lien, 669. 
 
INDEX. ; - 7 
 
 PROFIT— 
 
 debtor may not encumber profits of his business, 282. 
 included in " property," 68. 
 
 PROHIBITION— 
 
 courts of bankruptcy not subject to be restrained. See Courts 
 of Bankruptcy. 
 
 PROMISE. See Contract and Covenant. 
 
 made during composition to pay debt in full a fraud on credi- 
 tors, 539. 
 to pay debt barred by discharge, 538. 
 
 PROOF. See Vote, Debt. 
 
 bill-holder may only prove for residue of debt in certain cases, 
 425. 
 bill for larger sum than debt, 426. 
 certain debts not provable, 414. See Debt. 
 
 chairman may admit or reject proof for purjpose of voting, 403. 
 may accept cable or telegraph proofs in certain cases, 403. 
 creditor secured by bill or note to deduct value from proof, 403. 
 creditor to prove his debt as soon as (possible, 431. 
 
 proof optional but condition precedent to voting and divi- 
 dends, 432, 402, 384, 389. 
 declaration to contain statement of account and refer to vouch- 
 ers, 431, 699. 
 trustee may call for production of vouchers, 431. 
 declaration to state whether creditor a secured debtor, 431. 
 executor who proves abandons right of retainer, 445. 
 failure to prove after notice of final dividend excludes credi- 
 tor, 386. 
 in case of doubt, 403. 
 
 in case of fraud against joint or separate estate, 430. 
 in respect of distinct contracts, 446. 
 
 may prove against joint and separate estate, 448. 
 except as to cases still under the old rule, 447. 
 may be sworn before party's solicitor, 641. 
 mutual accounts for dishonoured bills, 426. 
 of residence of debtor, onus, 62. 
 of debt by telegra|ph for purpose of voting, 207, 403. 
 of debt by creditor claiming under composition, 659. 
 offence of making a false claim. 623. 
 
 only creditors who have proved entitled to dividend, 384, 389. 
 432. 
 proof at any time, 384. 
 
 right of secured creditor, 391. And see Secured Creditor. 
 only creditor who has proved entitled to vote, 402, 432. 
 proof against different estates for same debt, 424. 
 proof against estate of surety, 426. 
 
 surety who guarantees, payment of interest, 427. 
 proof by statutory declaration, 431, 699. 
 
 who may take declaration, 431. 
 rule against double proof in respect of same debt on one estate* 
 421. 
 right of surety to stand in >place of principal creditor, 423. 
 rules of construction as to liability of surety, 424. 
 secured creditor to value his security, 403, 404, 432. See 
 Secured Creditor. 
 trustee may require different securities to be valued separ- 
 ately, 433. 
 trustee to examine proofs and disallow claims, 48o. See Debts 
 Provable. 
 appeal to judge from disallowance of claim, 662. 
 
 debtor has no locus standi on appeal from rejection of 
 
 proof. 409. 
 trustee not personally liable for costs of appeal, 662. 
 notice of dividend sufficient notification of admission of 
 proof, 662. 
 
778 INDEX. 
 
 PROOF— Continued. 
 
 valuation of contingent or unliquidated claims, 662. See Valua- 
 tion. / 
 whether creditor who assents to void assignment can prove, 98. 
 
 173. And see Release and Estoppel. 
 whether discounts are to be deducted, 433. 
 withdrawal of proof, 445, 490. And see Secured Creditor. 
 where numerous claims for wages, 661, 699. 
 
 PROPER OFFICER— 
 defined, 634. 
 
 PROPERTY. And see Title, Vesting,' Aftkr-acquired Property^ 
 Composition. 
 application to declare for or against title of trustee to property, 
 
 663. 
 defined, 68. 
 
 divesting of. See Title. 
 division of -property of debtor among creditors, 386. See 
 
 Dividends. 
 effect of English bankruptcy on property in Canada, 74. 
 generally, 69 seq., -260. 
 bills, 69. 
 money, 69. 
 property outside Canada, 71. 
 
 personal or movable property, 72. 
 real or immovable property, 71. 
 things in action, 69. 
 not to be moved out of province, 315. 
 of debtor held in pledge by third party, 274. 
 of debtor which does not vest in trustee for distribution among 
 creditors, 278. 
 after-acquired property, 278. See After-acquired Property. 
 court may order trustee to return certain property, 291. 
 interest defeasible on bankruptcy, 41, 286 seq., 330. 
 contingent interests, 289. 
 rights of trustee on defeasance, 289. 
 trustee takes what bankrupt entitled to, 289. 
 property held by debtor as trustee, 278, 168, 171. And see 
 Trust Property. 
 property debtor believed he held as trustee, 285. 
 trust funds mixed with others, 284. 
 where debtor bare trustee, 283. 
 where debtor in fiduciary capacity as factor, 283. 
 (property exempt from seizure or execution, 278. 285, 168. 
 of debtor which vests in trustee for distribution, 278, 291. 
 alleged gifts, 307. 
 contracts with debtor, 301, 313. 
 
 contracts not necessarily terminated by bankruptcy, 
 
 301. 
 disclaimer of onerous contracts or property. See 
 
 Disclaim. 
 position of trustee who completes contract with his own 
 money 305. 
 miscellaneous matters, 308. 
 object of the bankruptcy law, 292. 
 iproperty of debtor at date of presentation of petition, etc., 
 
 292. 
 property is defined by the Act, but also depends on pro- 
 vincial law, 293. 
 rights of action which do and do not pass, 69, 266, 290, 294. 
 person suing on behalf of himself and other creditors, 
 
 298. 
 practice as regards plaintiffs and defendants, 298.. 
 plaintiff becoming bankrupt, 299. 
 defendant becoming bankrupt, 300. 
 
IXDh'X. r-ivg 
 
 PROPERTY— Continued. 
 
 rights in contract, 70, 295. 
 
 contracts in fieri tor personal services, 296. 
 personal earnings of bankrupt, 296. 
 rights in tort, 296. 
 
 whether a cause of action may be split, 297. 
 shares, 306. 
 
 trustee should perfect his title to a chose in action, 312. 
 the capacity to exercise powers, 278, 314. 
 offences in connection with property — 
 concealment of .property, 612. 617. 
 failing to discover property to trustee, 612, 616, 617. 
 failing to indicate disposition made of property, 612, 617. 
 failing to deliver up property, 612. 493. 
 fraudulent removal of property, 613, 617. 
 fraudulently obtaining property on credit. 614, 617. 
 pawning, pledging, disposing of property obtained on credit, 
 615, 617, 618. 
 of third party disposed of by trustee, 274. 
 of third party not to be removed for fifteen days, 275. 
 
 penalty, 630. 
 passing under composition, 214, 225. 
 person who admits possession of debtor's property ordered to 
 
 deliver up same, 504. 
 persons who may not purchase property of debtor, 256. And 
 see Purchase. 
 auctioneer, 257. 
 inspector, 256, 410, 412. 
 partner of trustee, 257. 
 solicitor of debtor, 257. 
 solicitor of trustee, 257. 
 trustee, 256, 318. See Trustee. 
 production of property of debtor, 502. See Promotion. 
 property received after discharge. See After-.ajcqt t ired Prop- 
 erty. 
 purchase by incumbrancers, 257. 
 realization of property of debtor. 386. 
 revests in trustee when composition annulled, 659. 
 sale of property of debtor to pay advances made by trustee, 317. 
 
 court may permit trustee to purchase, 318. 
 search warrant for, 587. See Warrant. 
 sheriff to deliver property of debtor to trustee. 179, 190. 
 transfer of within 6 months of assignment or bankruptcy 
 
 avoided in some cases, 327. 
 trustee to take possession of, 245, 246. 
 trustee may — 
 
 divide property, 252. 
 mortgage or pledge property, 251. 
 retain, assign or disclaim lease, 252. 
 sell, 250, 261. 
 
 sale by trustee vests property in purchaser, L'53. 
 sale of property in Quebec, 253. 
 
 proceeds of sale to be deposited in chartered bank, 
 316. 
 validation of dispositions of property under annulled adjudica- 
 tion. 540. 
 vesting of property where adjudication annulled, 540. 
 vests in new trustee, 152, 159, 238, 241 seq., 693. 
 vests in trustee on making of receiving order, 151, 152, 158. 
 
 more extensive than under authorized assignment, 153, 170. 
 vests in trustee on making of authorized assignment, 168, 170. 
 except trust property, 168, 171. 
 
 and property exempt from seizure under execution, 168. 
 in what way property vests, 171. 
 
780 INDEX. 
 
 \ 
 PROSECUTION— 
 
 court may direct (prosecution of debtor. See Offences. 
 
 only one prosecution for an offence under the Act, 628. 
 
 petition not prosecuted with effect, 124. 
 
 PROVABLE DEBT. See Debt. 
 
 PROVINCE. See Constitutional Law. 
 includes territory, 634. 
 
 PROVINCIAL LAW. See Property, Constitutional Law, British 
 North America Act. 
 
 as regards fraudulent preferences, 341, 342 seq., 353, 354. 
 as regards rights of landlord, 47.7. 
 
 landlord a secured creditor in Quebec, 478. 
 Bankruptcy Act superimposed on, 27. 
 bankrupt law in force by reason of, 90: 
 determines effect of receiving order against limited partnership, 
 
 657. 
 determines priorities in matters not covered by the Act, 465. 
 effect of sale by trustee in Province of Quebec, 253. 
 generally, Chap. IV. 
 property vesting in new trustee, 238. 
 
 property exempt from seizure under execution, 168, 278, 285. 
 receiving orders and authorized assignments not within,- 179, 
 
 193 seq. 
 
 constitutionality of this provision, 192. 
 
 except as reapects innocent purchasers for value, 184, 
 cf. 183, 200. 
 rights of creditors under, 54, 300. 
 
 transactions avoided by, 91, 354. And see Statute of Elizabeth, 
 Void and Voidable Transactions. 
 
 Arts. 1032-1040 C.P.C., 109. 
 
 fraudulent conveyances, 106. 
 what is property may depend on provincial .law, 293. 
 with respect to avoidance of general assignment of book debts, 
 
 335 seq. 
 
 PROXY— 
 
 creditors may vote by, 403. 
 
 form of, 699. 
 
 proxy form to be sent to creditors, 403. 
 
 PUBLICATION. See Notice. 
 generally, 195. 
 irregularity in, 183, 184, 200. 
 
 PURCHASE OP PROPERTY OF DEBTOR. And see Property. 
 but trustee may purchase with leave of the court, 318. 
 persons in fiduciary capacity may not purchase, .256 seq., 318. 
 purchase by incumbrancers, 257. 
 relief when sale attacked, 258. 
 
 PURCHASER. See Good Faith. 
 
 for value without notice, of land of debtor, 183, 184, 201. 
 
 in good faith at sheriff's sale protected, 178. 
 
 innocent purchaser for value protected from relation back of 
 
 amendment, 202. 
 in good faith and for valuable consideration under a settlement, 
 
 326, 331. 
 wife who bars dower, 354. 
 
 QUEBEC— 
 
 effect of sale by trustee in Province of Quebec, 253. 
 provisions respecting false bidding,- 660. 
 
 QUORUM— 
 
 three creditors, 402. 
 
 who have proved, 406. 
 
INDEX. 7gl 
 
 RAILWAY COMPANY— 
 
 not included in " corporation," 53. 
 
 REALIZATION— 
 
 of security. See Secured Creditor. 
 
 RECEIVER. See Interim Receiver. 
 
 effect of appointment of in making creditor secured creditor 81 
 has power to employ debtor to assist him 272 
 proceedings against under Winding-up Act, 663 
 trustee in the position of, 245. See Trustee. 
 
 his possession not to be interfered with, 245. 
 
 RECEIVER-GENERAL— 
 
 trnstee to pay to R.-G. all unpaid dividends, 386. 
 
 RECEIVING ORDER. And see Petition, Adjudication Bank- 
 ruptcy. 
 against firm operates against each inartner, 657. 
 
 limited partnership operates according to provincial law, 
 
 657. 
 where one member an infant, 657. 
 application to rescind, 657. 
 
 service of notice on trustee, 657. 
 
 stay of proceedings pending .hearing of application, 657 
 
 See Stat. 
 when order may be rescinded, 541, 542, 582. See Court 
 cannot be abandoned, 156. 
 contents of, 656. 
 
 contrasted with attaching order, 69. 
 copy of to be served on debtor, 657. 
 date of when order made on pjppeal, 595. 
 differs from an authorized assignment, 153, 170 seq. 
 distinction between receiving order and adjudication, 140. 
 distinction between receiving order in England and in Canada 
 
 153. 
 divests debtor of property, 153. See Property, After- wquireij 
 
 Property. 
 form of, 680. 
 
 is made when pronounced, not when signed, 154, 156, 158, 174 
 jurisdiction of registrar. 569. See Registrar. 
 made on hearing of petition, 123. See Petition. 
 may be made when tender refused, 134. 
 not made when estate can best be administered under an 
 
 assignment, 124, 135. 
 on non-appearance of debtor, 655. 
 where a bona fide dispute as to the debt, 134, 584, 651. 
 made on failure of creditors to accept proposal, 208. 
 of debtor to carry out terms of composition, 211. 
 not within the operation of any provincial law relating to deeds, 
 179. 
 provincial laws to apply unless property identified in three 
 
 months, 184. 
 rights of innocent purchasers for value preserved, 183, 184. 
 200, 201. 
 notice of receiving order to be gazetted and published, 179, 194. 
 
 See Notice. 
 production of copy of Canada Gazette conclusive evidence that 
 
 order made and its date, 599. See Evidence. 
 re gazetting when amended order made on appeal, 595. 
 takes precedence over attachments, executions, etc., 178. 181, 
 183, 186, 355. 
 but in the case of land, only after registration, 181, 183, 
 187. 
 registration to be in proper registry or land titles office. 
 180, 181. 
 affidavit upon registration, 182. 
 
7 82 INDEX. 
 
 RECEIVING ORDER— Continued. 
 
 application to compel registration, 183. 
 in same manner as lien or charge, 181. 
 omission to register not to invalidate assignment, 
 183. 
 but title may be divested unless property 
 identified, 185. 
 penalty for refusing to register, 182. 
 reason for registration under American Acts, 198. 
 when to be registered, 198. 
 subject to attaching or execution creditor's bill of costs, 
 178. See Costs. 
 
 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS— 
 
 to be sent by post to registrar. See Proceedings. 
 
 REDEMPTION OP SECURITY— 
 
 by trustee, 435. See Secubbd Creditor. 
 
 REDIRECTION— 
 
 of debtor's mail and telegrams, 515, 713. 
 
 REFUSAL— 
 
 of discharge. See Discharge. 
 
 REGISTRAR— 
 
 any registrar may act for any other registrar, 649. 
 appeal from decision of registrar, 570, 571, 650. 
 
 registrar the only person who can review or rescind his 
 own order, 571. 
 denned, 76, 634. 
 
 duty to register r.o. or a.a., 181, 197. 
 duty to take down material parts of evidence, 571. 
 fees payable to, 649. 
 
 tariff of, 729. 
 Gazette to be supplied to, 180. 
 may not delegate work to judge, 571. 
 no power to commit for contempt, 570. 
 (penalty for refusal to register r.o. or a.a. 182, 197. 
 powers of, 569, 570. 
 
 adjourn matter to judge, 635. 
 
 approve unexposed compositions, etc., 569. 
 
 when application to be deemed opposed, 658. 
 
 as to matters referred to in sec. 65(2), 635. 
 
 direct persons to hand over books and papers, 570. 
 
 examine certain persons, 569. 
 
 exercise chamber jurisdiction, 569, 570. 
 
 give leave for substituted service of notice of motion, 570. 
 
 grant unopposed orders of discharge, 569, 571, 660. 
 
 hear appeals from trustees' disallowance of claim under 
 $500, 569. But see 662. 
 
 hear unopposed petitions, 569. 
 
 hold examinations of debtors, 569, 571. 
 
 make interim orders, 569. 
 
 unopposed or ex parte applications, 569. 
 proceedings to be filed with, 636. 
 refusing to act guilty of contempt, 650. 
 refusing to make order it may be made on appeal, 160. 
 to be appointed by chief justice, 567, 568. 
 to keep on file and index Canada Gazette, 180. 
 
 REGISTRATION. And see Fiiing. 
 
 application to compel registration, 183. 
 
 effect of omission to register or irregularity in registration, 
 
 183, 184, 200. 
 of affidavit of appointment of new trustee, 238, 242. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 ?83 
 
 REGISTRATION— Continued. . 
 
 of receiving orders and authorized assignments in registry, etc , 
 office, 180, 198. 
 
 reason for registration under American Acts, 198. 
 
 receiving orders and authorized assignments not within pro- 
 vincial law with respect to registration, 179, 193, 194. 
 
 upon registration r.o. and a.a. take precedence over judgments, 
 etc., 181, 183, 199. 
 
 when registration must he made, 198, 146. 
 
 REGISTRY ACTS— 
 
 trustee cannot take advantage of, 40. 
 
 RE-HEARING— 
 
 every court may review, rescind or vary its own order, 589. See 
 Court. 
 
 REJECTION OP PROOF. See Debts Provable. 
 
 RELATION BACK— 
 of amendment, 202. 
 of bankruptcy, 124. 
 of title' of trustee — 
 
 cases outside the doctrine 357. 
 
 generally, 42, 90, 96, 141. 195, 280, 378. 
 
 distinguished from relation back of bankruptcy of debtor, 
 
 141. 
 incapacity of debtor, 143. 
 agents of the debtor, 144. 
 appropriation for past services 144. 
 appropriation or receipt for future services, 145. 
 his acts do not estop his trustee, 148. 
 ■payment out for future service, 145. 
 repayment, 146. 
 right to sue, 143. 
 costs, 144. 
 none in the case of an authorized assignment, 153, 172. 
 none when receiving order made on default in payment of 
 
 composition, 225. 
 principle on which the doctrine proceeds, 32, 33. 
 secured creditors affected by, 148. 
 severity of the doctrine mitigated by section 32 and two 
 
 rules of court, 142. 
 severity of doctrine mitigated by two rules of court, 142. 
 and by protection afforded by section 32, 142, 355, 
 357 seg. 
 transactions avoided by, 96, 187. 
 
 RELATIVES— 
 
 are restricted creditors in bankruptcy of firm or individual, 450. 
 
 RELEASE— 
 
 of debt by partner void in certain cases, 582. 
 of debts in void deed, 173. And see Estoppel. 
 
 REMAINING OUT OF CANADA— 
 an act of bankruptcy, 113, 115. 
 
 REMOVAL— 
 
 of goods, books or documents ground for arrest of debtor, 499. 
 of goods with intent to defraud, creditors may be act of bank- 
 ruptcy, 120. 
 of trustee by court, 238. 
 
 REMUNERATION. See Costs. 
 
 of interim trustee where petition dismissed, 654. 
 of removed trustee, 238, 242. 
 
 lien on trust property, 242. 
 
784 INDEX. 
 
 REMUNERATION— Continued. 
 
 of trustee, 3%, 238, 343. See Tkustee, Costs. 
 
 if not fixed by creditors to be five per cent, of cash receipts. 
 396, 398. 
 not to exceed that amount, 396. 
 may be reduced by court, 396. 
 pending investigation of proposal, 206. 
 to be determined generally by creditors, 396, 397. 
 to be fixed by the court — 
 
 in connection with discharge, 396. 
 in contributory cases, 382, 396. 
 trustee looks only to estate for remuneration, 397. 
 trustee cannot make profits as a solicitor. 398. 
 of trustee to be paid by debtor on application for discharge in 
 certain cases, 667. 
 
 RENT. See Landlord, Lease, Distress. 
 
 accelerated rent a general claim for three months' rent, 472, 
 481-2. 
 
 payment of occuoation rent credited against, 473. 
 a preferred claim, 457, 45ft. 
 
 as regards three months' rent, 460, 472. 
 damages against an overholding tenant, '482-3. 
 guarantee rent, 474. 
 occupation rent a preferred claim, 473. 
 rent by underlessee, 457. 
 
 right of action for breach of covenant to pay rent, 484-5. 
 surplus rent a general claim, 472. 
 surrender rent, 473. 
 
 REPAYMENT— 
 
 by reason of relation back of title of trustee, 146. 
 
 REPORT— 
 
 of trustee in case of proposal for composition, etc., 209, 658. See 
 
 Composition. 
 of trustee on debtor's application for discharge. 516. 
 of trustee prima facie evidence of statements, 529, 530. 
 
 REPUTED OWNERSHIP— 
 
 no reputed ownership clause in Act, 337. 
 
 RESCISSION— 
 
 of order of court — 
 
 every court may rescind its own order, 589. See Court. 
 of receiving order, 657. See Receiving Order. 
 
 RESIDENCE— 
 
 onus of proof of, 62. 
 
 what may be place of, 61, 66. 
 
 RESILIATION— 
 
 right of may make creditor a secured creditor, 80. 
 trustee takes subject to right of, 40. 
 
 RES JUDICATA— 
 
 refusal to make a receiving order, 139. 
 
 RESOLUTION. See Ordinary Resolution, Special Resolution. 
 defined, 76. 
 
 RESTRAINT— 
 
 courts of bankruptcy not subject to be restrained by any other 
 court. See Courts of Bankruptcy. 
 
lXUUX. ; 85 
 
 RESTRICTED CREDITOR. See Priority, Postponement. 
 cases outside the section, 452. 
 director and shareholder for salary, 450. 
 husband for wages and money lent to wife, 449. 
 in case of partnership, 385. 
 onus of proof, 451. 
 relatives for wages, 450, 453. 
 restricted creditors cannot [prove or vote, 451. 
 wife for wages and money lent to husband, 450, 451. 
 
 RETAINER. See Executor. 
 
 RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION OF ACT, 631, 632. 
 
 REVIEW. See also Re-hearing. 
 
 every court may review its own order, 589. See Court. 
 
 RIGHTS OF ACTION. See Property, Action, Chose in Action. 
 
 RULE. See General Rules, Judgment, Order. 
 tariff of costs for Rule, 726. 
 
 SALARY. And see Wages, Income, Earnings. 
 
 and personal earnings of bankrupt, 296. See Property. 
 
 a preferred claim, 457. See Priority. 
 
 salary a restricted claim in some cases, 449 seq. 
 
 SALE. And see Property. 
 
 application to stop sale, 260. 
 
 an assignment is not a " sale," 177. 
 
 by private contract, 251, 260. 
 
 of copyrighted work, 250. 
 
 of goods by sheriff an act of bankruptcy, 117. 
 
 payment of an execution on goods is not a " sale," 119. 
 
 sale itself not avoided, 118. 
 of patented articles or goods subject to restrictions, 250. 
 of property comprised in any security, 435. 
 
 creditor or trustee may bid or purchase, 435. 
 of property of debtor restrained at instance of interim receiver, 
 
 151. 
 of property of debtor, 250, 271, 317. See Trustee. 
 
 proceeds of sale to be deposited in chartered bank, 316. 
 
 who may not purchase. See Purchase. 
 of immovable property in Quebec, 253, 
 
 provisions in the case of false bidding, 253, 660. 
 permission required, 251, 255. See Permission. 
 restrained, 396. 
 
 SALESMAN— 
 
 a preferred creditor, 457. See Priority. 
 
 SAVINGS BANK— 
 
 not included in " corporation," 53. 
 
 SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT. _ See Composition, 162. 
 distinguished from composition, 213. 
 proposal for, 203. 
 
 SEAL— 
 
 denned, 634. 
 
 each court to have seal, 601. 
 
 judicial notice to be taken of, 601. 
 
 SEARCH— 
 
 fee for search, 180. 
 
 b.c— 50 
 
786 INDEX. 
 
 SEARCH WARRANT. See Warrant. 
 addressed to sheriff, 644. 
 enforced throughout Canada, 587. 
 for property of debtor, 587. 
 
 SECOND BANKRUPTCY. See Business. 
 
 disposition of after-acquired property in case of, 371, 375. 
 disposition of surplus in first bankruptcy, 394. 
 
 •SECRETARY OF STATE OF CANADA, 230 seq. 
 
 SECRETING OF GOODS— 
 
 may be act of bankruptcy, 120. 
 
 SECURED CREDITOR. And see Creditor. 
 
 cases where creditor not a secured creditor, 78, 88, 438, 444. 
 assignment of future profits, 83. 
 attachment, 81. 
 bills of exchange, 79. 
 purchaser of property of debtor, 80. 
 security not on property of debtor, 78. 
 sequestration, 81. 
 cases where creditor' may or may not be a secured creditor — 
 authorization to sell, 87. 
 license to seize, 82. 
 money paid into court, 82. 
 receiver, 81. 
 cases where creditor is a secured creditor — 
 assignment of future chattels, 52, 83, 84. 
 liens, 84 to 87. 
 mortgage, 80. 
 creditor who does not realize or surrender must value security, 
 434, 440. 
 amendment of valuation, 436, 443. 
 
 rights and liabilities where valuation amended, 436. 
 entitled to dividend only in respect of balance, 434. 
 excluded from dividend in certain cases, 436. 
 creditor to identify property comprised in security, 434. 
 
 failure to identify forfeits his interest to trustee, 434. 
 if trustee dissatisfied with value may require property to 
 be sold, 435, 442. 
 procedure on sale of property, 435. 
 where security valued trustee may redeem, 435, 442. 
 
 creditor may require trustee to elect whether to redeem 
 
 or sell, 435, 442. 
 on failure to elect property vests in creditor, 435. 
 creditor may rely on his security and not prove, 438. 
 creditor not to receive more than 100 cents on dollar, 436. 
 defined, 77. See 489-490. 
 
 different rules in bankruptcy and winding-up, 437. 
 execution creditor may become a secured creditor, 189. 
 for purpose of voting secured creditor to value his security, 
 402, 403, 404, 432. 
 position of secured creditor who votes in respect of whole 
 debt, 407. 
 if creditor realizes his security he may 'prove for balance, 434,- 
 
 439. 
 if creditor surrenders security he may prove for whole debt, 
 
 434, 440. 
 jurisdiction over. See Courts of Bankruptcy. 
 landlord a secured creditor in Quebec, 478. 
 may not prove and retain proceeds for interest due after date of 
 
 receiving order, 455. 
 not interfered with when interim receiver appointed, 151. 
 payment to a secured creditor not a fraudulent preference, 351. 
 right of secured creditor may be affected by relation back of 
 trustee's title, 148, 157. 
 
INDEX. 787 
 
 SECURED CREDITOR— Continued. 
 
 rights of secured creditors protected under authorized assign- 
 ment, 168, 173, 186, 227. 
 rights of secured creditor protected when action stayed on 
 
 approval of composition, 227. 
 rights of secured creditor protected when receiving order made, 
 
 151, 156, 160, 162, 178. 
 
 lienholder not restrained from registering his claim for 
 lien, 157. 
 secured creditor not compelled to prove, 391. 
 
 may prove for dividend at any time, 384. 391. 
 
 proof to state whether a secured creditor, 431. 
 valuation of security in proof, 402, 403, 404, 432. 
 
 separate securities to be separately valued, 433, 441. 
 wages a charge on security under Bank Act, 465. 
 withdrawal of proof, 445, 490. See Proof. 
 
 SECURITY. See Authorized Trustee, Bond. Surety. 
 
 additional security may be required, 231. See Additional 
 
 Security. 
 application to set aside security, 663. 
 for costs — ■ 
 
 in case petitioning creditor resident abroad, etc., 652. 
 
 no security for costs on appeal from registrar, 650. 
 
 of trial, 640. 
 
 on appeal to Appeal Court, 650. 
 
 on appeal to Supreme Court of Canada, 589, 651. 
 
 trustee not ordered to give. 264. 
 for costs, expenses and remuneration — 
 
 in contributory cases, 382. 
 general security to be given by trustee. 230. 231, 235. 
 sureties to general security discharged, 400. 
 realization, surrender valuation and sale of security. See 
 
 Secured Creditor. 
 securities held by creditors to be shown in statement of affairs, 
 
 492. 
 to be given by bond of approved guarantee company, 639. 
 
 deposit in lieu of bond. See Bond. 
 
 or by sureties at discretion of court, 639. 
 trustee entitled to interest when security provided in cash, 670. 
 wages a charge on security under Bank Act, 465. 
 
 SEDUCTION 
 
 judgment for not released by order of discharge. See Debt. 
 
 SEIZURE— . , , Q0 
 
 of books, jpapers, money and goods, warrant tor, 4ys. 
 
 SEPARATE CREDITOR. See Joint and Separate Estate. 
 
 SEPARATE PROPERTY— . 
 
 effect of judgment against married woman, b4, 59 1. 
 
 SEPARATION ANNUITY— 
 proof for, 420. 
 
 SEQUESTRATION— A ... 01 
 
 does not make creditor a secured creditor, 81. 
 
 SERVANT— 
 
 a preferred creditor, 457. 
 
 examination of, 502. See Examination. 
 
 SERVICE— „ ,. ., „,,. 
 
 address for service in case of solicitor, t>*o. 
 
 service on solicitor at, 646. 
 after death of debtor, 654. 
 
788 INDEX. 
 
 SERVICE— Continued. 
 
 duty of sheriff or bailiff to serve orders, etc., 646. 
 
 hours of service, 646. 
 
 of appointment for examination, 666. 
 
 of bankruptcy petition — 
 
 to be served personally on debtor, 652. 
 substituted service, 653. 
 form of notice, 675. 
 form of order, 676. 
 of notices arid documents by post when no other way specified, 
 
 603. 
 of notice of application to rescind, 657. 
 of petition on debtor, 123. 
 of receiving order on debtor, 657. 
 on corporation, 654. 
 on firm, 653. 
 
 on person carrying on business in other name, 654. 
 out of jurisdiction, 654. 
 outside the jurisdiction, 638. 
 personal service, 638. 
 
 not of appointment or summons, 642. 
 
 of supbcena, 642. 
 
 proved by affidavit, 642. 
 proof of service, 653. 
 tariff of costs for, 725. 
 
 SET-OFF— 
 
 law of set-off to apply, 319. 
 
 debts accruing due, 324. 
 
 difference between English and Canadian provisions, 320. 
 
 no set-off against calls on shares, 322. 
 
 right to set-off must be mutual, 322. 
 
 set-off and counter-claim, 321. 
 
 set-off and preference, 323, 342. 
 
 set-off generally,- 325. 
 
 time when mutual relationship must exist, 324. 
 property vesting in debtor includes, 308. 
 trustee may set-off a claim against creditor's dividend, 392. 
 
 SETTLEMENT— 
 
 application to set aside settlements, 663. 
 
 avoidance of certain settlements, 326. 
 
 not within the (protection of section 32, 355. 
 
 effect of avoidance of settlement, 332. 
 
 following proceeds of void settlements, 368. 
 
 meaning of " void," 332. 
 
 of order of court, 638. 
 
 saving of settlements made before :and in consideration of 
 marriage, 326. 331. 
 
 saving rights of purchase, etc., in good faith and for valuable 
 consideration, 326, 331, 332. 
 
 settlements avoided within five years from execution, 326, 333. 
 
 settlements avoided within one year from execution, 326. 
 
 settlements impeachable under 13 Eliz. c. 5, 330. 
 
 to defeat or delay creditors ground for refusing to grant dis- 
 charge or approve composition, 530. 
 
 what is meant by settlement, 328, 329. 
 
 SHARE. See Calls, Contribtjtories. 
 liability on transferred shares, 380. 
 no set-off against calls on shares, 322. 
 power of trustee to transfer, 315. 
 right of trustee to, 306. 
 
 SHAREHOLDER— 
 
 a creditor of a corporation, 54. 
 
 entitled to surplus 394. And see Surplus. 
 
 is a restricted creditor with respect to wages, 450. 
 
 loses certain rights when winding-up order made, 44. 
 
IXDEX. -g«i 
 
 SHERIFF— 
 
 creditor may direct sheriff to seize and sell, 187, 191. 
 
 defined, 88. 
 
 duty to sell after receiving order, 155, 191. 
 
 duty to serve documents, 646. 
 
 disposition of moneys paid to by third party, 191. 
 
 fees of, 178, 181, 190, 191. 
 
 fees and disbursements of a preferred claim, 457. 
 purchaser in good faith from sheriff protected, 178. 
 right to interplead by motion, 638. 
 sale of goods by may be act of bankruptcy, 117. 
 to deliver property of debtor to trustee, 179, 190. 
 
 ' SHORTHAND— 
 
 declaration by shorthand writer, 712. 
 examination taken down in, 642. 
 
 SISTER— 
 
 a restricted creditor, 450. 
 
 SITTINGS OF COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY. See Courts of Bank- 
 ruptcy. 
 regulated by judges, 649. 
 
 SOLICITOR— 
 
 address for service of, 646. 
 
 service on solicitor at, 646. 
 
 application for payment, 269. 
 
 costs of solicitor employed by trustee, 649. 
 
 costs and fees of. See Costs. 
 , court exercises summary jurisdiction over, 269. 
 
 fees of on collection of accounts, 728. 
 
 inspectors may limit amount of costs to be incurred, 267. 
 
 lien for costs, 268. See Lien. 
 
 lower scale of fees in certain cases, 648. 
 
 made officers of such courts, 610. 
 
 may practice in any court, 610. 
 
 trustee may employ, 251, 266. 
 
 trustee personally liable to solicitor for costs, 268. 
 
 to debtor may not purchase property, 257. 
 
 to trustee may not (purchase property, 258. 
 
 SON— 
 
 a restricted creditor, 450. 
 
 SPECIAL LEAVE— 
 
 to appeal to Supreme Court, 651. See Appeal. 
 
 SPECIAL RESOLUTION— 
 denned, 88. 
 
 SPECIAL SECURITY. See Additional Security. 
 
 SPECULATION— 
 
 bankruptcy brought on by. See Discharge. 
 
 STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS. And see Composition. 
 form of, 703. 
 
 offence of making material omission in, 613. 
 to be filed by trustee on motion for judgment against contribu- 
 
 tories, 664. 
 to be mailed to Dominion Statistician, 277. 
 to be made out by debtor, 492, 494, 657. 
 by corporation, 658. 
 by firm, 657. 
 
 joint and separate assets and debts to be distinguished, 
 495. 
 effect of admission of debt in, 495. 
 
790 * IXDEX. 
 
 STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS— Continued. 
 
 may be inspected by creditor or his agent, 492. 
 to show securities held by creditors, 492. 
 to be filed with registrar, 657. 
 in cases of composition, 658. 
 to be ready for presentation at first meeting, 409. 
 
 STATEMENT SHOWING INSOLVENCY— 
 an act of bankruptcy, 120. 
 
 STATUS, 56. 
 
 STATUTE OF ELIZABETH, 47. And see Provincial Law. 
 generally, 379. 
 
 settlements impeached under, 330. 
 
 transactions not amounting to fraudulent preference may be 
 impeached under, 354. 
 
 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS— 
 
 acknowledgment of debt in statement of affairs does not take 
 
 it out of Statute of Limitations, 495. 
 continues to run if debt arose before the bankruptcy, 430. 
 debts barred by are not provable, 429, 489. 
 does not run before discharge with respect to claims arising in 
 
 the bankruptcy, 156. 
 payment of dividends not a payment from which a promise to 
 
 pay the balance can be inferred, ; 156. 
 payments which will take the debt out of the statute, 430. 
 
 STATUTORY DECLARATION, 49, 67. 
 
 STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATION— 
 to cease. See Discharge. 
 
 STAY OF PROCEEDINGS. See Action^ Proceedings, 
 at any time after presentation of petition, 154, 160. 
 court may stay proceedings at any time, 576. See Court. 
 form of order restraining action, 682. 
 no stay of action to which discharge of debtor no defence, 535. 
 
 but judgment cannot be enforced during bankruptcy, 535. 
 no stay of proceedings on appeal to Supreme Court of Canada 
 
 unless ordered, 589. 
 of action on making of receiving order, 155, 160. 
 on sipproval of proposal for a composition, 227. 
 on making of authorized assignment, .227. 
 on making of receiving order, 155, 160. 
 on petition, 124, 141, 677. 
 
 until security given for costs, 652. 
 pending consideration of proposal for composition, 226. 
 pending hearing of application to rescind, 657. 
 stay of issuing of execution pending adjustment of rights of 
 
 contributories, 664. 
 
 STOCK— 
 
 right of trustee under English Act to transfer, 315. 
 
 STOPPAGE IN TRANSITU— 
 generally, 86, 105. 
 
 no fraudulent preference when debtor allows creditor to exer- 
 cise right of, 352. 
 
 STRANGERS— 
 
 jurisdiction over. See Courts of Bankruptcy. 
 
 SUBLEASE. See Lease. 
 
INDEX. 791 
 
 SUBPOENA— 
 
 disobedience of a contempt of court, 643. 
 
 form for, 722, 723. 
 
 may be had by any party to a proceeding, 641. 
 
 service of. See Service. 
 
 to be sealed, 636. 
 
 SUBSTITUTED SERVICE. See Service. 
 
 SUCCESSIVE BANKRUPTCIES. See Second Bankruptcy. 
 
 SUIT. See Action. 
 
 SUNDAY. See Time. 
 
 SUPPORT— 
 
 allowance for support of debtor, 272. * 
 
 SUPREME COURT OP CANADA— 
 
 appeal to by special leave, 589, 596. 
 
 SURETY. See Bond, Security. 
 
 for composition discharged when debtor adjudged bankrupt, 225. 
 
 guaranteeing payment of interest, 427. 
 
 included in "creditor" in case of a fraudulent preference, 339. 
 
 justification of, 638. 
 
 not released by discharge of co-surety, 532. 
 
 notice of sureties, 679. 
 
 proof against estate of surety, 426. 
 
 right to prove for interest, 454. 
 
 right to stand in place of principal creditor. 423. 
 
 rule of construction as to liability of surety for whole debt. 424. 
 
 to general security discharged, 400. 
 
 SURPLUS— 
 
 bankrupt has a right to, 282, 393. 
 
 in case of company, 394. 
 
 surplus after payment of provable debts to pay interest after 
 
 date of receiving order, 458. 
 surplus in first bankruptcy, 394. 
 surplus is not an attachable debt, 394. 
 trustee is trustee for debtor for surplus, 393. 
 
 SURRENDER— 
 
 of lease. See Lease. 
 
 of security. See Secured Creditor. 
 
 SUSPENSION OF DISCHARGE. See Discharge. 
 
 TARIFF OF COSTS, 648, 724. 
 
 TAXATION. And see Costs. 
 
 copy of bill or charges to be furnished trustee, 648. 
 
 costs shall be taxed on production of a copy of the order, 647 
 
 court may direct taxation, 646. 
 
 may fix a sum to be {paid in lieu of taxed costs, <U6. 
 notice of appointment for taxation, 648. 
 number of witnesses allowed on limited, 642. 
 of trustee's disbursements, 396. 
 right of bankrupt to attend, 269. 
 tariff of costs for, 726. 
 where a limit of costs has been fixed, 267. 
 
 TAXES— 
 
 collection of not interfered with by priority section, 45S. 460. 
 
 TAXING OFFICER— 
 
 certificate of. See Certificate. 
 defined, 634. 
 
792 INDEX. 
 
 TELEGRAM. See Proxy. 
 re-direction of, 515. 
 order Tor, 713. 
 
 TENANT. See Lease, Landlord. 
 
 TENDER— 
 
 court may make a receiving order where tender refused, 134. 
 
 TERRITORY— 
 
 included in province, 634. 
 
 THING IN ACTION. See Chose in Action, Property. 
 included in " property," 68. 
 
 THIRD PARTIES— 
 
 curator Is a third party in Quebec, 40. 
 trustee takes subject to rights of, 40 
 
 TIME. See also Extension of Time, Notice. 
 computation of — 
 
 generally, 602. 
 
 reckoning of days, 670. 
 
 where goods seized by sheriff, 119. 
 
 where service effected after hours, 646. 
 hours of service, 646. 
 power of court to extend time in any proceedings, 575. See 
 
 Court. 
 when aot of bankruptcy committed, 61. 
 when authorized assignment made, 61. 
 
 TITLE. See Vesting, Relation Back, Property, Trustee, Registra- 
 tion. 
 application to declare for or against title of trustee to property, 
 
 663. 
 conveyed by trustee, 259. See Trustee, Sale. 
 divests from trustee in certain cases, 184, 185, 372. 
 notice of change of title in case of personal property, 198. 
 of proceedings, 575, 207, 672. " 
 papers to be kept by trustee for twenty years, 660. 
 property of debtor revests in trustee when comiposition annulled, 
 
 659. 
 title under the Act — 
 
 as between debtor and trustee, 195. 
 
 as between successive trustees and those who deal with them, 
 197. See Property. 
 vests in trustee notwithstanding provincial law, 168, 171. 179, 
 193 seq. 
 
 saving rights of innocent purchasers for value, 183, 184, 201. 
 where interest of secured creditor is forfeited to trustee, 434. 
 where trustee fails to elect property vests in secured creditor, 
 
 435. 
 
 TORT— 
 
 rights of action in, 296. See Property. 
 
 TRADE. And see Business. 
 
 continuing to trade, 58, 61, 597. 
 
 continuing to trade after insolvency ground for refusal of dis- 
 charge. See Discharge. 
 debtor appointed to carry on his trade, 272. 
 married woman carrying on, subject to Act, 597. 
 
 TRANSACTIONS— 
 
 protected in certain cases, 355 seq., 367, 368, 371. 
 
 TRANSFER. See Assignment, Contract. Property, Settlement. 
 following proceeds of void transfers,. 368. 
 included in " settlement," 328. 
 may be fraudulent (preference, 339. , See Fraudulent Pref- 
 
 EHE.N'CE. 
 
 protected in certain cases, 355 seq. 
 
INDEX. <yi):\ 
 
 TRANSFER OP PROCEEDINGS— 
 form of order for, 681. 
 
 to another district or division. See Proceedings. 
 to proper court. See Proceedings. 
 
 TRANSMISSION OP PROCEEDINGS— 
 to registrar of appeal court, 651. 
 
 TRAVELLER— 
 
 a preferred creditor, 457. See Priority. 
 
 TRAVELLING SALESMAN— 
 
 a preferred creditor, 457. See Priority. 
 
 TRIAL— 
 
 judge may direct in certain cases, 663. 
 
 of issue by other court may be directed, 584. See Court. 
 
 appeal to court of appeal of province, 651. 
 of question relating to debt, 124. 
 
 TRUST COMPANY— 
 
 not included in " corporation," 53. 
 
 TRUST PROPERTY— 
 
 does not vest in trustee in case of authorized assignment, 168, 
 
 171, 278. See Property. 
 return of trust property no fraudulent preference, 352. 
 
 TRUSTEE. See Authorized Trustee. Relation Back, Title. 
 
 a preferred creditor with respect to fees and expenses, 457. See 
 
 Priority. 
 application to declare for or against title of trustee to property, 
 
 663. 
 appointment of on making of receiving order, 151. 
 assignment tio trustee outside locality of debtor, 174. 
 
 may not pass property to trustee, 174. 
 becomes receiver of the property on making of receiving order, 
 151. 
 is a receiver whose possession not to be interfered with, 
 245, 247. 
 certain settlements void as against, 326. 
 
 _. covenants, transfers and payments void as against, 326. 
 -costs and remuneration of. See Costs, Priority, Remuneration. 
 pending investigation of proposal, 206 
 when estate unlikely to meet, 238, 243. 
 defined, 89, 635. 
 
 demand on contributory by. See Conthkhitory. 
 de son tort, 144, 146, cf. 150, 172, 247. 282. 
 disallowance of claims by. See Debts. 
 disbursements of to be taxed, 396. See Disbursements. 
 discharge of. See Dispharge. 
 
 no release from results of fraud, 39!' 
 not released by discharge of co-trustee, 532. 
 duties of — 
 
 to act fairly, 143, 248, 291. 
 
 to call first meeting of all known creditors, 401. See Meet- 
 ings. 
 to send proxy forms, 403. 
 to declare dividends. See Dividends. 
 to deposit funds in chartered bank, 316. 
 
 not to pay moneys into private bank account, 316. 
 to elect whether to treat former trustee as trustee de son 
 
 tort. 247. 
 to examine proof and grounds of debt. See Debts Prov- 
 able. 
 to forward documents to Ottawa, 277. 
 to insure property, 245. 
 to keep books showing proceedings in the estate, 27ii. 
 
794 INDEX. 
 
 TRUSTEE— Continued. 
 
 to keep debtors' books, title papers, etc., for twenty years, 
 399, 660. 
 
 to pay preferred claims forthwith, 457. 
 
 to pay to Receiver-General unpaid dividends, 386.. 
 
 to realize property of debtor, 386. 
 
 to report to creditors and inspectors, 276. 
 
 to settle claims of creditors to rank against estate, 384, 386. 
 
 to take possession of property of debtor, 245, 246. 
 entitled to inspect goods in pledge, 274. 
 
 to bill of costs of party taxing costs, 648. 
 
 to interest on security supplied in cash, 670. 
 general assignment of book debts void as against, 334. 
 insurance becomes payable to, 245. 
 intervention with respect to after-acquired property, 371. See 
 
 Intervention. 
 is a receiver whose possession not to be interfered with, 245, 
 
 247, and see 151. 
 is trustee for the debtor for the surplus, 393. See Surplus. 
 liability for costs, 647, 662. ,See Costs. 
 liability of under lease, 483. See Lease. 
 lien of, 242. 
 
 may not purchase property of debtor, 256, 318. 
 must not insist on -rule which will produce unjust or dishonest 
 
 result, 143, 248, 291. 
 
 pay moneys into his private bank account, 316. 
 negligence of in disposing of property of third party, 274. 
 new trustee — 
 
 affidavit of appointment, 693. 
 
 notice to creditors of meeting to appoint, 691. 
 
 notice of appointment, 693. 
 
 power of court to appoint, substitute or add, 238, 232, 240. 
 creditors to substitute, etc., 237, 231, 239. 
 
 (property vests in, 152, 159, 238, 241. And see Property. 
 Title. 
 
 remuneration of removed trustee, 238, 242. 
 lien of trustee, 242. 
 
 resolution to appoint or substitute, 691. 
 
 to notify court of appointment, 169. 
 
 where additional security not furnished, 231, 232. 
 no action against for dividend, 387. 
 not bound to act, 175, 238, 242. 
 not released by discharge of co-trustee, 532. 
 offences — 
 
 acting without bond, 629. 
 
 non-compliance with the Act, 629, 183. 
 
 pretending to be trustee, 629, 
 penalty on for omission to register r.o. or a.a., 183. 
 possession of not to be interfered with, 245, 247, and see 151. 
 powers of — 
 
 adopt and pay for services rendered after notice of act of 
 bankruptcy, 143. 
 
 apply to court for directions, 249. 
 
 for amendment where mistake, 202. See Irregularity. 
 
 at meetings in certain cases, 404, 410. See Meetings. 
 in case of equal division of inspectors, 410. 
 may not vote in matters affecting himself, 404, 405, 410. 
 
 attend on application for discharge of debtor, 530. 
 
 compared with interim receiver, 151, 245. 
 
 execute powers i>t attorney and deeds, 249. 
 
 exercise powers, 249. 
 
 follow proceeds of void transactions, 368. 
 
 give receipts for money, 248. 
 
 inspect goods in pledge, 274. 
 
 may not purchase property of debtor, 256. 
 excefpt with permission of court, 318. 
 nor may his partner, 257. 
 
IXDHX. 795 
 
 TRUSTEE— Continued. 
 
 obtain order of court for prosecution of debtor. See 
 
 Offences. 
 pay costs in case of joint and separate estate, 648. 
 prove rank claim and draw dividend, 249. 
 require secured creditor to identify property, 434. 
 
 on failure of creditor to identify, his interest is for- 
 feited, 434. 
 require securities to be valued separately, 433. See Proof,* 
 
 Secured Creditor. 
 sell copyrighted work, 250. 
 
 sell patented articles or goods subject to restrictions, 250. 
 with written permission of inspectors, 251, 252, 255. 
 arbitrate, comipromise, etc., 252. 
 call for production of books, etc., 503. 
 carry on the business, 251. See Business. 
 divide property among creditors, 252. 
 employ a solicitor or agent, 251. 
 examine debtor and others, 501. See Examination. 
 mortgage or pledge property, 251. 
 retain or disclaim leases, 252, 472. See Lease. 
 ( sell property of flebtor, 251. 253, 255, cf. 250. 
 sales in Province of Quebec. 253, 255. 
 sale vests property in purchaser, 253. 
 
 title conveyed by trustee, 259. 
 trustee may not purchase. 256, 257, 318. 
 take legal proceedings, 251. 
 position of — 
 
 as liquidator, 44. 
 
 as the representative of creditors generally, 44, 281. 
 
 can go behind forms to get at the truth, 488. 
 estopped when debtor estopped, 148, 488. 
 generally, 39 seq., 266. 
 
 in pari delicto with defendant cannot recover, 43, 308. 
 must complete title to chose In action, 41. 
 occupies inferior position to debtor, 280. 
 superior position to debtor, 42, 281. 
 same position as debtor, steps into his shoes, 39, 158, 
 172. 
 takes property to pay creditors, 281. 
 takes subject to rights of third parties. 39, 280. 
 who completes contract with his own money, 305. 
 with respect to acts of bankruptcy, 42. 90 seq., 281. 
 with respect to matters contrary to policy of Act, 43, 281. 
 preferences void as against, 339. See Fraudulent Preference. 
 property of debtor vests dn — 
 
 in case of receiving order, 151, 152, 158. See Property. 
 
 where a new trustee, 152, 159, 238, 241. See Property. 
 under authorized assignment 168, 170. See Property. 
 relation back of title of trustee. See Relation Back. 
 remuneration of. See Costs. Remuneration. 
 
 of interim trustee where petition dismissed, 654. 
 where debtor applies for discharge after payment of final 
 dividend, 667. 
 respective powers of trustee and interim receiver, 151, 245. 
 same trustee. See Consolidation of Proceedings, Court. 
 
 where petitions against two partners, 581. 
 several trustees, 24D. 
 
 should complete title to chose in action, 41. 
 
 should not appeal from order allowing creditor to take proceed- 
 ings, 379. 
 under a void assignment cannot attack chattel mortgage, 177. 
 whether a trustee under an authorized assignment may become 
 a trustee de son tort, 144, 172, 282, cf. 146, 150, 247. 
 
 UNCLE— 
 
 a restricted creditor, 450. 
 
?96 INDEX. 
 
 UNDERLEASE. See Lease. 
 
 UNDISCHARGED BANKRUPT. And see Business. 
 
 dealings by undischarged bankrupt with his property, 371. 
 disposition of after-acquired property in case of second bank- 
 ruptcy, 375. 
 
 UNDUE PREFERENCE— 
 
 a cause for refusal or suspension of discharge, 526. 
 
 UNLIQUIDATED CLAIM— 
 
 procedure for valuation, 622. See Valuation. 
 
 VACATION— 
 
 to be regulated by judges, 649. 
 
 VALUABLE CONSIDERATION— . 
 
 " adequate valuable consideration " — 
 deHned, 356, 365. 
 effect of, 356, 365. 
 bar of dower as, 354. 
 
 " fair and reasonable consideration," 368, 370. 
 valuable consideration, 371, 373, 374. 
 
 VALUATION. And see Proof, Secured Creditor. 
 effect of valuation, 419. 
 of contingent claims, 414, 419, 662. 
 
 alimony,- 420. 
 
 separation annuity, 420. 
 of security by secured creditor. See Secured Creditor. 
 
 VARY— 
 
 every court may vary its own order, 589. See Court. 
 
 VESTING OF PROPERTY. And see Title. Property. 
 
 divesting of property in certain cases, 184. 372. 
 
 in trustee and in new trustee, 151, 152, 158, 159, 238, 241 seq. 
 
 of property on approval of composition and annulment of bank- 
 ruptcy or a.a., 211. 
 
 of property on sale by trustee, 253. 
 
 on annulment of adjudication, 540. 
 
 whether property vests by force of the statute or by virtue of 
 the assignment, 171. 
 
 VEXATIOUS PROCEEDINGS— 
 by debtor. See Discharge. 
 second application for receiving order, 139. 
 
 VIVA VOCE EVIDENCE— 
 
 _court may accept, 575. See Court. 
 
 VOID AND VOIDABLE TRANSACTIONS. And see Provincial 
 Law. 
 acts of bankruptcy, 42, 90 seq., 95, 112, 118. 
 certain transactions saved by section 32, 355. 
 general assignment of bookdebts void in certain cases, 335. 
 meaning of in case of settlement, 326, 332. 
 preferences void as against trustee, 339. 
 right to follow proceeds in case of, 368 seq. 
 transactions contrary to the policy of the Act, 43, 358." 
 
 VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT. See Settlement. 
 
 VOTE. See Proof, Meeting. 
 
 chairman can admit or reject proof for purpose of voting, 403. 
 
 in case of doubt creditor to be allowed to vote, 403. 
 creditors may vote by proxy, 403. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 VJi 
 
 VOTE— Continued. 
 
 corporation may vote, 404. 
 
 court has jurisdiction in certain cases to disregard resolution 
 
 409. 
 creditor secured by bill or note to vote in respect of balance 
 
 only, 403, 409. 
 no vote on part of a claim acquired after the assignment, 404. 
 only creditor who has proved may vote, 402, 406. 
 restricted creditor cannot vote,- 449, 452. 
 scale of votes, 404. 
 
 secured creditor to vote in respect of balance after valuing 
 security, 402, 404. 
 
 position of secured creditor who votes in respect of whole 
 debt, 407. 
 trustee may vote in certain cases, 404. 
 
 has a casting vote, 404. 
 
 may not vote in matters affecting himself, 404. 
 
 VOTING LETTER— 
 form of, 685. 
 
 WAGES. See Salary, Income, Earnings. 
 
 a charge on security under Bank Act, 465. 
 and personal earnings of bankrupt, 296. See Property. 
 a preferred claim, 457. See Priority. 
 proof where numerous claims for wages, 661. 
 reckoning of three months in case of an interim receiver, 150. 
 wages, salary and compensation a restricted claim in some cases, 
 449 seq. 
 
 WAGE-EARNER— 
 
 cannot be made a bankrupt, 56, 166. 
 defined, 89. 
 
 WARRANT— 
 
 debtor arrested under to be given to Governor of Prison, 644. 
 
 in some cases first to be brought before court, 645. 
 examination of person arrested under, 645. 
 for arrest of debtor and seizure of books, etc., 498 seq form 
 
 for, 710. 
 for arrest of " witness," 502. 
 
 only recalcitrant persons to be arrested, 512. 
 for committal for contempt, 709. 
 of seizure, 710. 
 
 search warrants for property of debtor, 587. 
 to be addressed to -sheriff, 644. 
 to be enforced throughout Canada, 587. 
 to be sealed, 636. 
 
 WIFE. See Married Woman, Husband, Settlement. 
 ''a restricted creditor in husband's bankruptcy, 450. 
 
 WINDING-UP ACT— 
 appeal under, 593. 
 application of to corporation. 55, 60. 
 certain .proceedings against directors under, 663. 
 jurisdiction of courts under, 553 seq., 559 seq., 563. 
 leave to proceed under, 637. 
 
 procedure under in enforcing orders of other courts, 585, 586. 
 rules with respect to secured creditors different in, 438. 
 
 WITHDRAWAL— 
 
 of petition, 124, 141. 
 
 WITNESS— 
 
 costs of allowed whether examined or not, 642. 
 debtor attending meeting entitled to conduct money in certain 
 cases, 661. 
 
798 INDEX. 
 
 WITNESS— Continued. 
 
 deposition made evidence after death by seal of court, 601. 
 entitled to witness fees and conduct money, 644. 
 
 no contempt when fees not tendered, 643. 
 
 tariff for, 728. 
 fees for on examination, 502. 
 
 may be recovered from trustee by action, 513. 
 limitation of number of to be allowed on taxation, 642. 
 may not refuse to answer, 506. See Examination. 
 refusing or neglecting to attend, 644. 
 refusing to be sworn or to answer, 644. 
 subpoena for, 641. 
 
 disobedience of a contempt of court, 643. 
 
 WOMAN. See Married Woman. 
 
 whether women can be made bankrupt, 57. 
 
 WORKMAN— 
 
 a preferred creditor, 457. See Priority. 
 
 "WORKMEN'S .COMPENSATION ACT— 
 
 indebtedness under is a preferred claim, 457. See Priority. 
 
 WRITTEN, WRITING — 
 defined, 635. 
 
 WRITINGS. See Books. 
 
 concealment or removal of ground for arrest of debtor, 499. 
 court may order production of, 643. 
 
 failure to attend a contempt of court, 643. 
 offences in connection with writings — 
 
 failure to deliver up writings, 612, 617. 
 
 preventing production of any writings, 613. 
 
 WRITS— 
 
 of execution, 649. 
 tariff of costs for, 725.